From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6688 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 18:23:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 6680 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Sep 2009 18:23:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:23:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42BA2BAB3F; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id i4CRIXNH2lMR; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96B12BAB35; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E2612F593D; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.0 regressions: s390(x)-linux, ppc(64)-linux, spu-elf Message-ID: <20090928182332.GJ9019@adacore.com> References: <20090928153818.GE9019@adacore.com> <200909281632.n8SGW1YR004895@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909281632.n8SGW1YR004895@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 I was going to reply again to your initial email, going through each patch one by one, but since I already commented on some of the patches directly on gdb-patches, I'll reply to this message instead. > - Put in the patches that are testsuite-only (7, 8, 9 in my list) > They should be harmless and significantly clean up test suite > results on some platforms Yeah, I agree. > - Put in the solely platform-specific patches (3, 5, 6) > I've tested these, and they definitely help on those platforms 3. Displaced stepping missing on S/390 This one seems safe. At worst, non-stop would still be broken... 5. PIE detection not enabled on PowerPC and S/390 I suggested we pass on this one because it's just a missing warning. But it only affects the targets that you know much better than I do, so I'll trust your judgement on this one. 6. SPU gdbserver regressions when killing inferior Agreed that it would be nice to have it for 7.0. > - The bitfield regression (1) seems a serious error affecting > multiple platforms that really should be fixed, and the patch > seems straightforward ... I think it's OK to put this in 7.0 as well. Daniel reviewed your patch, so that's two pairs of eyes. > - The displaced stepping regression is unfortunate, as it completely > breaks a new feature. The patch *should* affect only PowerPC, but > it does need to touch generic files (infrun.c), so there's always > some risk. In any case, I'd prefer to get at least some feedback > before putting it in ... This one seems a little more problematic indeed. Is that a regression compared to 6.8? If it is, perhaps we could try to get it fixed for 7.0.1 instead? > - The Obj-C changes are not really a regression, so it may not really > be critical to put those in. On the other hand, they just touch > Obj-C code (except for one PowerPC-specific bugfix), and they > drastically improve the situation on PowerPC-64, so it would be > nice ... Again, I'd definitely like some feedback first. Given the severity of the problem (SEGV), I think we should put your patch in 7.0. -- Joel