* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
[not found] <200309192212.h8JMCdfS021605@duracef.shout.net>
@ 2003-09-19 22:16 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2003-09-19 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: gdb
This points out an interesting issue. I can attach a patch to a PR in
two ways, neither of which are really satisfactory:
- I can attach the patch directly to the PR, which causes GNATS to
generate E-mail messages that refer to "attachments" that are not
present in the message.
- Or, if I'm replying to a PRMS message, I can attach the patch to the
message, which results in the patch not appearing as an attachment
to the PR itself.
Hmph. I could always just do both, I suppose.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
@ 2003-09-22 3:39 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2003-09-22 3:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dberlin, drow; +Cc: gdb
dberlin> GDB has GNATS, and in order to keep the bug numbers the same,
dberlin> we'd have to set up a new install of bugzilla (since bugzilla
dberlin> bug ids are "globally" unique to a given bugzilla instance,
dberlin> rather than unique to a given product).
I can work with all the bug numbers changing, as long as you
publish a table showing the conversion. Also it would be
more convenient for me to do it a time when there is no live
gdb branch (so I don't have to change KFAIL numbers on the
branch as well as the mainline).
dberlin> Does GDB have any different gnats fields than gcc's gnats used to?
Dunno, off hand. There are some new fields that I desperately
want, specifically "compiler version used to compile the program
the inferior program".
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-22 3:05 ` Daniel Berlin
@ 2003-09-22 3:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-09-22 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Berlin; +Cc: gdb
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:05:05PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > > >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> > > >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> > > >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> > > >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
> > >
> > > Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> > > to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
> >
> > I'd say, absolutely. I've been meaning to ask Daniel B. about setting
> > one up for binutils too.
>
> binutils is easier than gdb, because binutils has nothing right now.
> Thus, there's nothing to convert :P.
>
> GDB has GNATS, and in order to keep the bug numbers the same, we'd have
> to set up a new install of bugzilla (since bugzilla bug ids are
> "globally" unique to a given bugzilla instance, rather than unique to a
> given product).
Yeah, at this point I guess we'd prefer to hold on to the PR ids.
We've documented some of them...
> Does GDB have any different gnats fields than gcc's gnats used to?
>
> If not, i can run the conversion script on the database, import the data
> into my test database on dberlin.org, and you guys could see what the
> converted db looks like (though i don't have inbound email handling set up
> on my machine).
I don't think it does. Different things in the category lists et
cetera, of course. But that's it. Right now it's:
Reporter, CC, Number, Category, Synopsis, Confidential, Severity,
Priority, Responsible, State, Class, Submitter-Id, Arrival-Date,
Closed-Date, Last-Modified, Originator, Release, Organization,
Environment, Description, File Attachments, How-To-Repeat, Fix,
Release-Note, Unformatted, and the Audit Trail.
Usual caveats about how much some of those are worth.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-20 4:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2003-09-22 3:05 ` Daniel Berlin
2003-09-22 3:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2003-09-22 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> > >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> > >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> > >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
> >
> > Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> > to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
>
> I'd say, absolutely. I've been meaning to ask Daniel B. about setting
> one up for binutils too.
binutils is easier than gdb, because binutils has nothing right now.
Thus, there's nothing to convert :P.
GDB has GNATS, and in order to keep the bug numbers the same, we'd have
to set up a new install of bugzilla (since bugzilla bug ids are
"globally" unique to a given bugzilla instance, rather than unique to a
given product).
Does GDB have any different gnats fields than gcc's gnats used to?
If not, i can run the conversion script on the database, import the data
into my test database on dberlin.org, and you guys could see what the
converted db looks like (though i don't have inbound email handling set up
on my machine).
--Dan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-20 0:04 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2003-09-22 2:55 ` Daniel Berlin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berlin @ 2003-09-22 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: Christopher Faylor, gdb
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> > >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> > >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> > >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
> >
> > Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> > to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
>
> Does bugzilla allow you to CC the bug on E-mail messages, the way
> GNATS does? I love that, and I haven't seen bugzilla do it.
Uhh, of course.
It's even much simpler than the gnats handling code, because it's a simple
database operation.
The bulk of the code (a couple hundred lines of perl) is devoted to
parsing out and handling attachments in the email (while a perl module
handles most of the details, we still have to do stuff with the data
itself, make up a filename for stupid mailers, etc), as well as verifying
permissions and issuing new accounts for new users.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-19 23:58 ` Christopher Faylor
2003-09-20 0:04 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2003-09-20 4:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-22 3:05 ` Daniel Berlin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-09-20 4:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
>
> Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
I'd say, absolutely. I've been meaning to ask Daniel B. about setting
one up for binutils too.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-19 23:58 ` Christopher Faylor
@ 2003-09-20 0:04 ` Jim Blandy
2003-09-22 2:55 ` Daniel Berlin
2003-09-20 4:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2003-09-20 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christopher Faylor; +Cc: gdb
Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
>
> Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
Does bugzilla allow you to CC the bug on E-mail messages, the way
GNATS does? I love that, and I haven't seen bugzilla do it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
2003-09-19 22:29 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2003-09-19 23:58 ` Christopher Faylor
2003-09-20 0:04 ` Jim Blandy
2003-09-20 4:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2003-09-19 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
>and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
>That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
>archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3
@ 2003-09-19 22:29 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-09-19 23:58 ` Christopher Faylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2003-09-19 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jimb; +Cc: gdb
I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-22 3:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200309192212.h8JMCdfS021605@duracef.shout.net>
2003-09-19 22:16 ` macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3 Jim Blandy
2003-09-19 22:29 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-09-19 23:58 ` Christopher Faylor
2003-09-20 0:04 ` Jim Blandy
2003-09-22 2:55 ` Daniel Berlin
2003-09-20 4:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-22 3:05 ` Daniel Berlin
2003-09-22 3:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-22 3:39 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox