From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27430 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2014 16:09:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 27381 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2014 16:09:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:09:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8CF11633D; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:09:08 -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 9KqL1pihrV4i; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA381162C1; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1C73410E0; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:09:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nicholas Clifton Cc: Tristan Gingold , "binutils@sourceware.org" , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Synchronizing Binutils and GDB releases Message-ID: <20140818160906.GC4828@adacore.com> References: <53F21C4B.4000109@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53F21C4B.4000109@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 Hi Nick, > The idea was raised at this year's GNU Tool's Cauldron. It would > help users who manage combined toolchain sources. Currently if they > want to create a combined tree of specific releases of the gcc, gdb > and binutils they have to choose which version of the BFD library to > use. But if they find a bug and want to check in a fix, they have to > remember that there are actually two versions of the BFD sources to > patch. Multiply this by a number of different GDB/BINUTILS release > combintations and this becomes a maintenance headache. I've been trying to think this through a little: Binutil's schedule is roughly one release per year. GDB's schedule is usually 2, but can depend on new features. I don't think that GDB is thinking of changing the frequency of its releases, so unless binutils switches to two releases a year, the two projects are not even on the same schedule. And the release numbering is also different. Also, finding a branchpoint for a release branch has never been easy in the past, and having to now consider both binutils and gdb for creating that branch is only going to make things harder either by delaying the branching, or by creating more backports. I think that it would be an extra burden for both projects, and at the same time, I am not sure I am seeing how it would still be beneficial for both binutils and GDB to be adoption these shared release branches. Maybe it's because I don't see why using a combined tree is making things any different? -- Joel