From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16856 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2011 17:10:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16846 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2011 17:10:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:10:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB1HAcEF028937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:10:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB1HAaqQ014453; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:10:37 -0500 From: Phil Muldoon To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: Tom Tromey , GDB Development Subject: Re: ambiguous linespec decision point References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Sergio Durigan Junior's message of "Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:14:27 -0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 Sergio Durigan Junior writes: > Tom Tromey writes: > >> It is time to decide whether the ambiguous linespec patch should go in >> for 7.4 or be delayed until 7.5. Since I am ready to be done with this >> patch, I don't think I can be really objective about it, so I am looking >> for input on this topic. >> >> At this point the patch is regression free, according to the test suite, >> and Joel has fixed the remaining problems shown by the AdaCore test >> suite. >> >> The main risk is just that the patch is quite large and so there may be >> regressions lurking that the test suite has not revealed. > > I know my opinion does not count that much, but I think it is OK to > check it in since you both spent quite some time hunting and solving > bugs on this. Moreover, after the branching we would have two weeks > IIRC to find some regression and fix it. I agree with Sergio, and even if the test period goes on a week or two more, the value this patch would bring is great. Cheers, Phil