From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-36873-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27376 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2010 11:47:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 27367 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2010 11:47:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:47:42 +0000
Received: (qmail 16886 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2010 11:47:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Feb 2010 11:47:41 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [gdb-7.1] 10 days to branching...
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:47:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>,  gdb@sourceware.org,  Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>,  Chris Sutcliffe <ir0nh34d@gmail.com>
References: <20100201081928.GA9204@adacore.com> <m3eikrsk8p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20100212051007.GI2919@adacore.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100212051007.GI2919@adacore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201002121147.39525.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2

On Friday 12 February 2010 05:10:07, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> The following diff is the workaround that sounds the simplest.
> I will test it on my end, but I'm not certain of the quality of my C++
> compiler (I remember getting more FAILs than I think I should). Anyone
> wants to test it? =A0I want to apply the workaround immediately after
> I created the branch so that I can create the first pre-release right
> after.

How far are we from getting the expr-cumulative branch
merged?  If it's not getting in soon after branching, then
I'd suggest applying the workaround before branching, so that
we don't fix a crash in 7.1 and leave it regressing in mainline.
We can always revert the workaround when or before the
expr-cumulative stuff goes in.

--=20
Pedro Alves