From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12170 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 06:32:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 12160 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2009 06:32:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:31:39 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so879438tib.12 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:31:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.93.12 with SMTP id q12mr2819574tib.8.1232087496478; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:31:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20090116033948.GI31296@adacore.com> References: <20090115034552.GF24105@adacore.com> <496F7115.9010903@caviumnetworks.com> <20090115173646.GC31296@adacore.com> <20090116033948.GI31296@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussing the next GDB release (GDB 7.0?) From: teawater To: Joel Brobecker Cc: David Daney , gdb@sourceware.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 Thanks Joel, About process record, there were a lot of discussion with it and most of them were fixed. So in the third time submit, I think most parts of process record are OK. But after that, I didn't get approve (I just got the approve of doc from Eli). And I think "catch syscall" meet the same problem too. S=E9rgio send 3 PINGs for third submit. Please help us with it. The follow links are for process record and replay submit first time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00096.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00097.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00098.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00099.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00100.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00101.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00102.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00103.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00104.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00105.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00106.html The follow links are for process record and replay submit second time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00394.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00395.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00396.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00397.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00398.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00399.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00400.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00401.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00402.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00403.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00404.html The follow links are for process record and replay submit third time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00125.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00126.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00127.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00128.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00129.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00130.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00131.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00132.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00133.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00134.html The follow links are for 'catch syscall' feature submit first time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00583.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00584.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00585.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00587.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00586.html The follow links are for 'catch syscall' feature submit second time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00016.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00019.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00017.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00020.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00018.html The follow links are for 'catch syscall' feature submit third time: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00449.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00450.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00451.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00452.html http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00453.html Thanks, Hui On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:39, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Teawater, > >> > Do we need process record and replay in 7.0 release? >> > It's in submit process. > >> And catch syscall? I think it hang too. > > Neither of these features seem critical to me, but that's only > a personal opinion. As GDB Maintainer, I think of my role as being > the technician that implements the recommendations of the GDB > Maintainers. If the maintainers think this is critical, then > I'll add them to the list as blocking for the release. > > That being said, this does not mean that they will not make it > for the release. If they get checked in before we branch, then > they're in... > > Regarding the "process record" series of patches, I hesitate to > review them, because I know there has been some discussion that > I had to zap because I was too busy at the time. Hopefully the > persons involved in the discussion at the time can also review > your patches. If not, I'll be home by the end of the month - > could you send me personally the links to the discussions and > the patches, and I'll try to take a look. > > Regarding the "catch syscall", same thing. There was a long debate, > and I zappped it. Same suggestion. > > -- > Joel >