From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>,
gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
arnez@vnet.linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: GDB 7.9 release update
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54D1C3E6.5030109@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150204041129.GN4525@adacore.com>
On 04/02/15 04:11, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> I am also wondering if we should also wait for...
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17837 ... or not.
>>> Pedro, I see you've been kind enough to start looking into this
>>> (bugzilla papertrail). What do you think? Blocker, not blocker?
>>
>> I'm not sure. I haven't fully understood what the scripts in
>> question are doing and how the issue triggers. I've asked Jan
>> if he could come up with a simplified reproducer. Hopefully we'll
>> have a better idea soon.
>
> OK. Thanks a lot for looking into this for us, Pedro.
> I've added this item to the list as a "maybe".
>
>> There was also this:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-01/msg00703.html
>>
>> The issue there is that with both remote and record targets, GDB
>> can get messed up after 'query'. That's a regression compared
>> to 7.8.
>>
>> I think I'll go push that series to master ASAP. I'll wait for
>> feedback on the plan before pushing into 7.9 though.
>
> I've added this as a maybe as well. The patches are a little large,
> but don't necessarily seem scary, and if the failure is bad enough...
> I think you'll have the best perspective to make the call. We will
> wait for feedback if we have to.
>
> We still have a little extra time regardless, as I don't see much
> activity on
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17716
>
> I'm not too surprised. I think Phil said he was going to be traveling
> too.
>
> Thanks, Pedro!
Sorry for the delay. I've just come back from some meetings and then
FOSDEM. I'll get to work on this bug. But again I do not consider it
a blocker, certainly not for release. There are workarounds for it
(disable frame-filter all), for the cases of exceptionally long
backtraces.
It is unfortunately a non trivial issue having to do with both Python
interrupts and GDB exceptions, so a fix has to be carefully tested.
Cheers
Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-04 7:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-27 11:17 Joel Brobecker
2015-01-28 14:32 ` Doug Evans
2015-01-29 7:19 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-02-03 14:24 ` Pedro Alves
2015-02-03 18:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-02-04 4:11 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-02-04 7:02 ` Phil Muldoon [this message]
2015-02-05 5:55 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-02-17 10:34 ` ready GDB 7.9 release? (was: "Re: GDB 7.9 release update") Joel Brobecker
2015-02-17 11:15 ` ready GDB 7.9 release? Pedro Alves
2015-02-17 11:21 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-02-17 12:02 ` Pedro Alves
2015-01-29 16:28 ` GDB 7.9 release update Andreas Arnez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54D1C3E6.5030109@redhat.com \
--to=pmuldoon@redhat.com \
--cc=arnez@vnet.linux.ibm.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=dje@google.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).