From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27647 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2009 01:39:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 27629 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2009 01:39:39 -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; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:39:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386B82BAB6B; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:39:32 -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 TmwxS0Hmzy3l; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01ECA2BAB69; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 001ECF593D; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:39:00 -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: <20090929013925.GR9019@adacore.com> References: <20090928182332.GJ9019@adacore.com> <200909290105.n8T15fUL011333@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909290105.n8T15fUL011333@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/msg00315.txt.bz2 > > > - 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 ... [...] > Due to the severity of the problem I'd prefer to have the fix in 7.0. > But if you'd rather do a 7.0.1 I guess I can live with that as well. > Let me know whether I should check it in ... The following is mostly for the record since I replied directly to the associated gdb-patches thread. I was going to suggest two approaches: - Either we disable the new feature entirely, which is clearly a bummer when we know how to fix the breakage; - Or commit the patch is one of the GMs thinks the patch is safe. Since then I noticed that Pedro said he thinks it's safe, so we'll have the patch in 7.0! :-) -- Joel