* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 14:56 GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update Joel Brobecker
@ 2017-12-04 15:07 ` Tom Tromey
2017-12-04 15:21 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-04 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2017-12-04 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, tom, palves, sergiodj, yao.qi
Joel> * [TomT] PR breakpoint/22511
Joel> Regression in "commands"
I sent a couple of notes about this to the list last week, and I'm
waiting for a reply before proceeding.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 15:07 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2017-12-04 15:21 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-12-04 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, sergiodj, yao.qi
On 12/04/2017 03:06 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Joel> * [TomT] PR breakpoint/22511
> Joel> Regression in "commands"
>
> I sent a couple of notes about this to the list last week, and I'm
> waiting for a reply before proceeding.
Sorry, last Friday it was holiday here, and I haven't had a chance
to work through that yet.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 14:56 GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update Joel Brobecker
2017-12-04 15:07 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2017-12-04 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-04 17:02 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-12-04 16:23 ` Yao Qi
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-12-04 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker, gdb-patches; +Cc: tom, sergiodj, yao.qi
On 12/04/2017 02:56 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As far as I know, the issues identified the last time we did
> an update on the branch have all been either - defered to the next
> release (ARMv8.3-A Pointer Authentication suppport), or pushed.
> See: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_8.1_Release
>
> There are a number of PRs targetting 8.1 however. Should we wait
> for those to be fixed before we branch?
>
> * [TomT] PR breakpoint/22511
> Regression in "commands"
>
> * [PedroA] PR gdb/Bug 22499
> 8.0 regression: wrongly read $xmm0
>
> Pedro sent a patch for review on Nov 29th, so I think we can wait
> for that one before branching.
>
> * [SergioDJ] PR cli/16224
> add "pahole" functionality to ptype
>
> Work is being done as we speak, with some patches sent.
> I think we continue the wait.
>
> In addition, we have the following unassigned PR:
>
> * [YaoQ???] PR python/22475
> Python API: breakpoint subclass: GDB crashes if function called through parse_and_eval() exits
>
> Yao - are you working on this PR? I am asking because you marked it
> as targetting 8.1 with the following message: "Set the target
> milestone to 8.1, although it is not a regression from last release.".
>
> I'll continue monitor those PRs closely, and hope that we can branch
> by, say, early next week.
>
> Am I missing other issues that you think should block the creation
> of the 8.1 branch?
One thing that I was thinking it'd be nice to see about getting
into 8.1 was the DWARF5 index stuff (standard replacement for
.gdb_index):
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-05/msg00577.html
Not sure about making that the default (seems risky), but it
might be nice to provide the option so that users/distros can
start experimenting (and so that Fedora/RHEL doesn't end up
having to backport yet another large series... :-P) . I tried
to review that in the past but stumbled on choices I didn't quite
understand, and there are also some open questions, but I was
planning on taking another look. I can't really promise I/we can
get it done this week, so not sure about blocking the branching
because of it.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2017-12-04 17:02 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-12-09 0:17 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2017-12-04 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: gdb-patches, tom, sergiodj, yao.qi
> One thing that I was thinking it'd be nice to see about getting
> into 8.1 was the DWARF5 index stuff (standard replacement for
> .gdb_index):
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-05/msg00577.html
>
> Not sure about making that the default (seems risky), but it
> might be nice to provide the option so that users/distros can
> start experimenting (and so that Fedora/RHEL doesn't end up
> having to backport yet another large series... :-P) . I tried
> to review that in the past but stumbled on choices I didn't quite
> understand, and there are also some open questions, but I was
> planning on taking another look. I can't really promise I/we can
> get it done this week, so not sure about blocking the branching
> because of it.
Indeed, it would be nice, and we can wait a bit to see if we manage
to get it in. But looking at the size of the patch, unless you think
it's almost ready and it's only a matter of a few fixes here and
there, it seems like this might be a bit risky...
Let's give ourselves this week, and see where we get. In the meantime,
I've added this to the "maybe" section, before 18.1 branching.
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 17:02 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2017-12-09 0:17 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-11 4:24 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-12-09 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, tom, sergiodj, yao.qi
On 12/04/2017 05:02 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> One thing that I was thinking it'd be nice to see about getting
>> into 8.1 was the DWARF5 index stuff (standard replacement for
>> .gdb_index):
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-05/msg00577.html
>>
>> Not sure about making that the default (seems risky), but it
>> might be nice to provide the option so that users/distros can
>> start experimenting (and so that Fedora/RHEL doesn't end up
>> having to backport yet another large series... :-P) . I tried
>> to review that in the past but stumbled on choices I didn't quite
>> understand, and there are also some open questions, but I was
>> planning on taking another look. I can't really promise I/we can
>> get it done this week, so not sure about blocking the branching
>> because of it.
>
> Indeed, it would be nice, and we can wait a bit to see if we manage
> to get it in. But looking at the size of the patch, unless you think
> it's almost ready and it's only a matter of a few fixes here and
> there, it seems like this might be a bit risky...
>
I've played around with that series for a few days (on and off...),
and I've now pushed it in, with an important change that eliminates
most of the risk, IMO -- the original series made GDB default
to the new index format, while I left .gdb_index the default.
This should allow users/distros experimenting, and hopefully
any follow up fixes should be small/contained and easy to backport.
> Let's give ourselves this week, and see where we get. In the meantime,
> I've added this to the "maybe" section, before 18.1 branching.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-09 0:17 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2017-12-11 4:24 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2017-12-11 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: gdb-patches, tom, sergiodj, yao.qi
> >> One thing that I was thinking it'd be nice to see about getting
> >> into 8.1 was the DWARF5 index stuff (standard replacement for
> >> .gdb_index):
> >>
> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-05/msg00577.html
[...]
> I've played around with that series for a few days (on and off...),
> and I've now pushed it in, with an important change that eliminates
> most of the risk, IMO -- the original series made GDB default
> to the new index format, while I left .gdb_index the default.
> This should allow users/distros experimenting, and hopefully
> any follow up fixes should be small/contained and easy to backport.
Makes sense indeed! Thanks for doing that, Pedro.
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 14:56 GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update Joel Brobecker
2017-12-04 15:07 ` Tom Tromey
2017-12-04 15:17 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2017-12-04 16:23 ` Yao Qi
2017-12-04 16:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-12-04 16:25 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-04 17:11 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
4 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2017-12-04 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker
Cc: GDB Patches, Tom Tromey, Pedro Alves, Sergio Durigan Junior, Yao Qi
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> * [YaoQ???] PR python/22475
> Python API: breakpoint subclass: GDB crashes if function called through parse_and_eval() exits
>
> Yao - are you working on this PR? I am asking because you marked it
> as targetting 8.1 with the following message: "Set the target
> milestone to 8.1, although it is not a regression from last release.".
No, I am not working on this. I am still testing ARM and AArch64 GDB,
no extra cycles on this now. I may take a look at it if I finish all ARM and
AArch64 GDB testing, and 8.1 is not released yet.
Can I clear the target of PR python/22475?
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 16:23 ` Yao Qi
@ 2017-12-04 16:52 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2017-12-04 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi
Cc: GDB Patches, Tom Tromey, Pedro Alves, Sergio Durigan Junior, Yao Qi
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> >
> > * [YaoQ???] PR python/22475
> > Python API: breakpoint subclass: GDB crashes if function called through parse_and_eval() exits
> >
> > Yao - are you working on this PR? I am asking because you marked it
> > as targetting 8.1 with the following message: "Set the target
> > milestone to 8.1, although it is not a regression from last release.".
>
> No, I am not working on this. I am still testing ARM and AArch64 GDB,
> no extra cycles on this now. I may take a look at it if I finish all ARM and
> AArch64 GDB testing, and 8.1 is not released yet.
>
> Can I clear the target of PR python/22475?
Yes, let's clear it if there are no reason real reason to put
additional pressure on us.
Thank you!
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 14:56 GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update Joel Brobecker
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-12-04 16:23 ` Yao Qi
@ 2017-12-04 16:25 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-04 17:11 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
4 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-12-04 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker, gdb-patches; +Cc: tom, sergiodj, yao.qi
On 12/04/2017 02:56 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> * [PedroA] PR gdb/Bug 22499
> 8.0 regression: wrongly read $xmm0
>
> Pedro sent a patch for review on Nov 29th, so I think we can wait
> for that one before branching.
I pushed this one in now.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update
2017-12-04 14:56 GDB 8.1 branching 2017-12-04 update Joel Brobecker
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2017-12-04 16:25 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2017-12-04 17:11 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
4 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Sergio Durigan Junior @ 2017-12-04 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, tom, palves, yao.qi
On Monday, December 04 2017, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> * [SergioDJ] PR cli/16224
> add "pahole" functionality to ptype
I've pinged this patch today. Eli has already approved the docs.
Thanks,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread