From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1AA385700C for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:01:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4C1AA385700C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82DA41E009; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Propose GDB 10 branch this Fri-Sun (Sep 11-13) [2020-09-05 Update] To: Kamil Rytarowski , Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200905205318.GA30158@adacore.com> <20200908134922.GB18641@adacore.com> <71a16911-121e-6d8f-5b6e-6f1ebf5cfeff@netbsd.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <1967229a-df6a-cc8f-8228-b4ae63858298@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:01:42 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <71a16911-121e-6d8f-5b6e-6f1ebf5cfeff@netbsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:01:44 -0000 On 2020-09-08 9:51 a.m., Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 08.09.2020 15:49, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> I think that's reasonable. I just finished taking a look, I did review it >>> as best as I could. There's not much risk in merging it, and the sooner this >>> is available upstream, the better, so I think we should just go ahead with it. >>> >>> Of course, the more pair of eyes on the code the better, so if somebody else >>> wants to take a look, go ahead. >>> >>> I would also consider including the gdbserver support for ARC, with the same >>> logic. But I don't think that has to block the branch creation, we can easily >>> cherry-pick it. >> >> I'm not opposed to these going into GDB 10 on the basis that they >> are isolated pieces of code that can't affect the rest. On the other >> hand, if those can be safely pushed at the last minute, they should >> also be cherry-pickable on the branch, so given the very large delay >> the branching has already suffered, I would not delay branching >> for this new feature further. We can simply cherry-pick those later. >> Would that be acceptable? >> > > Personally, I consider the patchset to be ready to merge, but it depends > on the reviewers with approval privilege. > This is now merged (any post-merge review is welcome, but I believed it looked good enough that we didn't need to delay it further). Simon