From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10771 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2015 07:02:08 -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 10756 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2015 07:02:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:02:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t14720uQ017340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:02:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-23.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.23]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1471wA6024911; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 02:01:59 -0500 Message-ID: <54D1C3E6.5030109@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:02:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , Pedro Alves CC: Doug Evans , gdb-patches , arnez@vnet.linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: GDB 7.9 release update References: <20150127043704.GB4697@adacore.com> <20150129045344.GC5193@adacore.com> <54D0DA28.9080500@redhat.com> <20150204041129.GN4525@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20150204041129.GN4525@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00071.txt.bz2 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