Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

Hi,

Given that:

- there hasn't been contributions to the QNX Neutrino port for a while [1]
- there is no maintainer for it
- the tools to build and run QNX programs are not publicly available for
  anybody to test this support

I propose to remove QNX Neutrino support from GDB for GDB 12.  That means
the support would still be included in GDB 11, the next release, and removed
just after the GDB 11 branch is created.

There are two parts to it:

1. Native bits for when GDB itself runs on Neutrino (nto-procfs.c)
2. Neutrino target support (nto-tdep.c and friends)

We can't compile #1, as that requires the Neutrino SDK.  We can build-test
#2, as it doesn't require Neutrino-specific include files, but we can't run
it.  The current plan is to remove both.  But if Neutrino target support
(#2) is still being used (say, with a custom remote target), but native
support (#1) isn't, one option is to only remove the native bits, so we only
keep the part that anybody can at least build.

If somebody would like the support for Neutrino to stay in GDB, please speak up.
If so, we will need a maintainer to step up and become responsible to that port.

There is a patch series that implement the proposal here:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-December/173894.html

Thanks,

Simon

[1] Last one was d7161de46af ("[nto] Improve ABI sniffing.")

Re: Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Stephen Webb via Gdb]

> If somebody would like the support for Neutrino to stay in GDB, please
 > speak up.
 > If so, we will need a maintainer to step up and become responsible to 
 > that port.

We at QNX have opened discussions internally on this. Please hold off on 
removal until at least the new year.

Thanks

--
smw

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 2020-12-11 12:31 p.m., Stephen Webb via Gdb wrote:
>> If somebody would like the support for Neutrino to stay in GDB, please
>  > speak up.
>  > If so, we will need a maintainer to step up and become responsible to 
>  > that port.
> 
> We at QNX have opened discussions internally on this. Please hold off on 
> removal until at least the new year.

Ok, thanks for the heads up.  If you'd like to contribute upstream, please
let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 2020-12-11 12:52 p.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
> On 2020-12-11 12:31 p.m., Stephen Webb via Gdb wrote:
>>> If somebody would like the support for Neutrino to stay in GDB, please
>>  > speak up.
>>  > If so, we will need a maintainer to step up and become responsible to 
>>  > that port.
>>
>> We at QNX have opened discussions internally on this. Please hold off on 
>> removal until at least the new year.
> 
> Ok, thanks for the heads up.  If you'd like to contribute upstream, please
> let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

Hi Stephen,

Do you have any news regarding this?

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Stephen Webb via Gdb]

On 2021-02-25 16:16, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2020-12-11 12:52 p.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>> On 2020-12-11 12:31 p.m., Stephen Webb via Gdb wrote:
>>>> If somebody would like the support for Neutrino to stay in GDB, please
>>>   > speak up.
>>>   > If so, we will need a maintainer to step up and become responsible to
>>>   > that port.
>>>
>>> We at QNX have opened discussions internally on this. Please hold off on
>>> removal until at least the new year.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the heads up.  If you'd like to contribute upstream, please
>> let us know if there's anything we can do to help.
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Do you have any news regarding this?

We have decided to commit to integrating our fork as much as possible 
into upstream and maintaining it there.

There are a lot of steps we'll need to go through to complete this 
process, including all the legal and technical preparations. These will 
of course take time and we're going to need some guidance.

We already have pointers on BuildBot setup so we can start the ball 
rolling locally on our end. We'll start by maintaining a local patch 
queue against upstream branches and submitting them through the various 
review processes. I do not yet have a time estimate on when this will be 
ready.

Is there a link to the paperwork requirements for code submissions? The 
sooner we get the ball rolling on that the sooner we can start waiting 
for it.

--
smw

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 2021-02-27 10:48 a.m., Stephen Webb wrote:
> We have decided to commit to integrating our fork as much as possible 
> into upstream and maintaining it there.

Great!

> There are a lot of steps we'll need to go through to complete this 
> process, including all the legal and technical preparations. These will 
> of course take time and we're going to need some guidance.

No problem, we're here to help.

It's a bit early, but do you think there's a chance that people in the
GDB community can get access to the toolchain to build for Neutrino?
This way we could at least build-test our changes.  Otherwise, we can
just try our best when we do changes to the Neutrino files, or we
sometimes just forget to change them when doing big changes across the
codebase.

> We already have pointers on BuildBot setup so we can start the ball 
> rolling locally on our end.

I don't know if you are talking about the upstream GDB buildbot.  But
this one is dead currently.  It was maintained by an ex-contributor
(Sergio) on his own time, and it's unmaintained now.  I think everyone
would like if we had working CI, but nobody is working on that right
now.

> We'll start by maintaining a local patch 
> queue against upstream branches and submitting them through the various 
> review processes. I do not yet have a time estimate on when this will be 
> ready.

Perfect.  As always, sending small and focused patches will make it
easier to review and merge.

The first step will likely be to get the port building.  I can't build
it myself, but I recently noticed it was calling functions that didn't
exist anymore (e.g. inf_child_mourn_inferior), so it definitly doesn't
build.

> 
> Is there a link to the paperwork requirements for code submissions? The 
> sooner we get the ball rolling on that the sooner we can start waiting 
> for it.

The technical bits for contributions are here:

    https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist

In my opinion, the most important is:

 - use git-send-email to send the patches
 - make sure you are on latest master
 - one logical thing per patch, if you notice addition cleanups to do,
   just add another patch on top (or before) rather than shoving
   unrelated changes in a patch
 - write detailed commit messages, if you look at commits in the gdb/
   directory you'll get an idea

Do your best for the formatting and ChangeLog entries.  They likely
won't be correct on the first try, and the comments on the first few
patches will help you learn those.  After that you'll get the hang of
them.

Regarding the copyright assignment, I'd like to see what is the status
of QNX.  Is there maybe an existing company-wide copyright assignment
for QNX, given the past contributions?  Unfortunately, the GNU server
used to check those seems down.  I'll try back later.

If there isn't, it's possible to get an assignment for individuals, or a
company-wide one (meaning that any QNX employee can submit code to GDB).

The typical form we point individuals to to get an assignment is this
one (also down for me at the moment):

    https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future

But I don't know if that differs if you want to get one for someone who
will contribute on behalf of a company.  The folks at assign@gnu.org
will be able to help you.

In any case, I'd suggest sorting the copyright assignment thing as early
as possible, because that can take some time.  You can still send
patches and get them reviewed while that is pending, but you won't be
able to merge the patches until that's done.

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

> Regarding the copyright assignment, I'd like to see what is the status
> of QNX.  Is there maybe an existing company-wide copyright assignment
> for QNX, given the past contributions?  Unfortunately, the GNU server
> used to check those seems down.  I'll try back later.
> 
> If there isn't, it's possible to get an assignment for individuals, or a
> company-wide one (meaning that any QNX employee can submit code to GDB).
> 
> The typical form we point individuals to to get an assignment is this
> one (also down for me at the moment):
> 
>     https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
> 
> But I don't know if that differs if you want to get one for someone who
> will contribute on behalf of a company.  The folks at assign@gnu.org
> will be able to help you.
> 
> In any case, I'd suggest sorting the copyright assignment thing as early
> as possible, because that can take some time.  You can still send
> patches and get them reviewed while that is pending, but you won't be
> able to merge the patches until that's done.

I was able to take a look at the copyright assignment file.  I found an
entry dating from 2002-02-15 for GDB, with no name (it only mentions
QNX).  So it's perhaps a company-wide assignment?  Hopefully that can
help you find any traces of it internally.  In doubt, ask
assign@gnu.org, they probably have access to the detailed paperwork.

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 2021-03-01 11:45 a.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>> Regarding the copyright assignment, I'd like to see what is the status
>> of QNX.  Is there maybe an existing company-wide copyright assignment
>> for QNX, given the past contributions?  Unfortunately, the GNU server
>> used to check those seems down.  I'll try back later.
>>
>> If there isn't, it's possible to get an assignment for individuals, or a
>> company-wide one (meaning that any QNX employee can submit code to GDB).
>>
>> The typical form we point individuals to to get an assignment is this
>> one (also down for me at the moment):
>>
>>     https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
>>
>> But I don't know if that differs if you want to get one for someone who
>> will contribute on behalf of a company.  The folks at assign@gnu.org
>> will be able to help you.
>>
>> In any case, I'd suggest sorting the copyright assignment thing as early
>> as possible, because that can take some time.  You can still send
>> patches and get them reviewed while that is pending, but you won't be
>> able to merge the patches until that's done.
> 
> I was able to take a look at the copyright assignment file.  I found an
> entry dating from 2002-02-15 for GDB, with no name (it only mentions
> QNX).  So it's perhaps a company-wide assignment?  Hopefully that can
> help you find any traces of it internally.  In doubt, ask
> assign@gnu.org, they probably have access to the detailed paperwork.
> 
> Simon
> 

Hi Stephen

Do you have any updates about this?

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Stephen Webb via Gdb]

On 2021-08-04 10:51, Simon Marchi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021-03-01 11:45 a.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>>> Regarding the copyright assignment, I'd like to see what is the status
>>> of QNX.  Is there maybe an existing company-wide copyright assignment
>>> for QNX, given the past contributions?  Unfortunately, the GNU server
>>> used to check those seems down.  I'll try back later.
>>>
>>> If there isn't, it's possible to get an assignment for individuals, or a
>>> company-wide one (meaning that any QNX employee can submit code to GDB).
>>>
>>> The typical form we point individuals to to get an assignment is this
>>> one (also down for me at the moment):
>>>
>>>      https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future__;!!COg3wY07Hnb7!-QdSDefYRZU83E3QoIKDECG14HQyWydyjH4yGM0yF8AikrbmXWSfBM_bHGRdXuRJ$
>>>
>>> But I don't know if that differs if you want to get one for someone who
>>> will contribute on behalf of a company.  The folks at assign@gnu.org
>>> will be able to help you.
>>>
>>> In any case, I'd suggest sorting the copyright assignment thing as early
>>> as possible, because that can take some time.  You can still send
>>> patches and get them reviewed while that is pending, but you won't be
>>> able to merge the patches until that's done.
>>
>> I was able to take a look at the copyright assignment file.  I found an
>> entry dating from 2002-02-15 for GDB, with no name (it only mentions
>> QNX).  So it's perhaps a company-wide assignment?  Hopefully that can
>> help you find any traces of it internally.  In doubt, ask
>> assign@gnu.org, they probably have access to the detailed paperwork.
>>
>> Simon
>>
> 
> Hi Stephen
> 
> Do you have any updates about this?

I am still wrestling with internal demons on this, I apologise for the 
silence.  I should have some basic binutils patches soon as a first step.

On that topic, are binutils changes handled the same as gdb changes or 
are they a separate process? The history is very confusing.

--
smw

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 2021-08-04 11:14 a.m., Stephen Webb wrote:
> I am still wrestling with internal demons on this, I apologise for the 
> silence.  I should have some basic binutils patches soon as a first step.

No worries, as long as we get regular updates to know the project is not
dead.

> On that topic, are binutils changes handled the same as gdb changes or 
> are they a separate process? The history is very confusing.

The process is roughly the same, only that the patches are sent to
binutils@sourceware.org instead of gdb-patches@sourceware.org.  Also,
make sure your copyright assignment covers both projects (GDB and
binutils).

A small difference in process is that we don't use ChangeLog entries in
GDB anymore, whereas binutils still uses them.

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Luis Machado via Gdb]

On 8/4/21 2:21 PM, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 11:14 a.m., Stephen Webb wrote:
>> I am still wrestling with internal demons on this, I apologise for the
>> silence.  I should have some basic binutils patches soon as a first step.
> 
> No worries, as long as we get regular updates to know the project is not
> dead.
> 
>> On that topic, are binutils changes handled the same as gdb changes or
>> are they a separate process? The history is very confusing.
> 
> The process is roughly the same, only that the patches are sent to
> binutils@sourceware.org instead of gdb-patches@sourceware.org.  Also,
> make sure your copyright assignment covers both projects (GDB and
> binutils).
> 
> A small difference in process is that we don't use ChangeLog entries in
> GDB anymore, whereas binutils still uses them.

master binutils has abolished ChangeLogs as well.

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-June/117016.html

Confirmed by H.J. here:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-August/117591.html

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi]

On 2021-08-04 13:21, Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 11:14 a.m., Stephen Webb wrote:
>> I am still wrestling with internal demons on this, I apologise for the
>> silence.  I should have some basic binutils patches soon as a first step.
>
> No worries, as long as we get regular updates to know the project is not
> dead.

Hi Stephen,

Routine ping to know the status of your effort.

Simon

Re: Proposal to Removal of QNX Neutrino support from GDB

[Simon Marchi via Gdb]

On 8/4/21 11:14, Stephen Webb wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 10:51, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021-03-01 11:45 a.m., Simon Marchi via Gdb wrote:
>>>> Regarding the copyright assignment, I'd like to see what is the status
>>>> of QNX.  Is there maybe an existing company-wide copyright assignment
>>>> for QNX, given the past contributions?  Unfortunately, the GNU server
>>>> used to check those seems down.  I'll try back later.
>>>>
>>>> If there isn't, it's possible to get an assignment for individuals, or a
>>>> company-wide one (meaning that any QNX employee can submit code to GDB).
>>>>
>>>> The typical form we point individuals to to get an assignment is this
>>>> one (also down for me at the moment):
>>>>
>>>>      https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future__;!!COg3wY07Hnb7!-QdSDefYRZU83E3QoIKDECG14HQyWydyjH4yGM0yF8AikrbmXWSfBM_bHGRdXuRJ$
>>>>
>>>> But I don't know if that differs if you want to get one for someone who
>>>> will contribute on behalf of a company.  The folks at assign@gnu.org
>>>> will be able to help you.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I'd suggest sorting the copyright assignment thing as early
>>>> as possible, because that can take some time.  You can still send
>>>> patches and get them reviewed while that is pending, but you won't be
>>>> able to merge the patches until that's done.
>>>
>>> I was able to take a look at the copyright assignment file.  I found an
>>> entry dating from 2002-02-15 for GDB, with no name (it only mentions
>>> QNX).  So it's perhaps a company-wide assignment?  Hopefully that can
>>> help you find any traces of it internally.  In doubt, ask
>>> assign@gnu.org, they probably have access to the detailed paperwork.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Hi Stephen
>>
>> Do you have any updates about this?
> 
> I am still wrestling with internal demons on this, I apologise for the 
> silence.  I should have some basic binutils patches soon as a first step.

Hi Stephen,

Someone reminded me of this thread... any news on your side about
upstream contributions?

Simon