From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9700 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2018 03:57:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9683 invoked by uid 89); 24 Aug 2018 03:57:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 03:57:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F99E308421A; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 03:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pinnacle.lan (ovpn-116-27.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.27]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BEA72010CF1; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 03:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 03:57:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 8.2 release 2018-08-21 status update Message-ID: <20180823205718.3b941d0a@pinnacle.lan> In-Reply-To: <20180821175136.GA3365@adacore.com> References: <20180821175136.GA3365@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2 On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:51:36 -0700 Joel Brobecker wrote: > * [KevinB] PR gdb/23021 > Setting breakpoints with -freorder-blocks-and-partition > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23021 > > Identified as needed in the previous release, but couldn't do it > in time. We should be very close, now: > [v3] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-08/msg00467.html > > I'm wondering how reasonable it's going to be to backport > those changes onto the branch, though... Any thoughts on that? > Kevin? Simon? I was able to apply the eight "non-contiguous address range support" patches to my local checkout of gdb-8.2-branch. Part #2 needed some fixing, but everything else applied cleanly (which kind of surprised me). I've tested on x86-64. No regressions. Let me know if you want it pushed... Kevin