From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1020 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2014 15:42:29 -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 999 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2014 15:42:25 -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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: OARmail.OARCORP.com Received: from oarmail.oarcorp.com (HELO OARmail.OARCORP.com) (67.63.146.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:42:24 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.169] (192.168.1.169) by OARmail.OARCORP.com (192.168.2.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:36:13 -0500 Message-ID: <53F21EDB.9030907@oarcorp.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:42:00 -0000 From: Joel Sherrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicholas Clifton , Tristan Gingold , Joel Brobecker CC: "binutils@sourceware.org" , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Synchronizing Binutils and GDB releases References: <53F21C4B.4000109@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53F21C4B.4000109@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 On 8/18/2014 10:31 AM, Nicholas Clifton wrote: > Hi Tristan, Hi Joel, > > What do you think to the idea of synchronizing GDB and BINUTILS > releases ? > > 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. > > > If we had a combined release there would be only one branch in the > git repository and things would be a lot simpler. We could even extend > this idea by arranging for the release to happen slightly before each > GCC release. Then GCC version X could could say that it works best with > GDB/BINUTILS version Y. I can't speak for the entire world but I know that since the move to git, I have been building binutils+gdb as one unit and gcc+newilb as another. It has simplified my testing of the RTEMS targets and appears to shave a little time off the builds. OTOH we have sometimes managed to upgrade a gdb on an old binutils/gcc/newlib. It is usually low risk because we don't try to share the BFD library. We have treated gdb and binutils as separate entities. Updating binutils would force us to rebuild gcc+newlib. If a BFD patch were needed, we would evaluate what to do. It might be a patch to binutils and a gdb upgrade. But we are a unique project in that we prefer end users to build from source. Linux distros would be in a different position. > Cheers > Nick > -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985