GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Joel Brobecker]

Hello everyone,

I hinted in a message I sent a couple of weeks ago on this mailing-list
(https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-05/msg00821.html),
we should be getting ready for the next GDB release branch (8.2).

So far, I have received the following requests. I tried to find
relevant URLs whenever possible, but please update me if you have
a better one.

  * (AlanH) gdb/gdbserver support for aarch64 SVE
    [v2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00145.html

  * (PhilippeW) Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
    [v2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00118.html

  * (SergioDJ) Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver
    Latest update: received comments, waiting for new version:
    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00238.html

  * (AndrewB) gdb: Don't drop SIGSTOP during stop_all_threads
    Latest update: Reviewed and mostly OK'ed (minor comments)
    Waiting for next version of the patch.
    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00284.html

I would like very much to cut the branch by end of this month at
the very latest. After that, we get into the summer holidays where
things start getting slow, so I'd rather start before then.

Do you guys think you'll be able to make it?

-- 
Joel

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Monday, June 11 2018, Joel Brobecker wrote:

> Hello everyone,

Hi Joel,

>   * (SergioDJ) Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver
>     Latest update: received comments, waiting for new version:
>     https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00238.html
[...]
> I would like very much to cut the branch by end of this month at
> the very latest. After that, we get into the summer holidays where
> things start getting slow, so I'd rather start before then.
>
> Do you guys think you'll be able to make it?

Yeah, I am planning to submit a v2 before Friday, and hopefully get the
patch accepted before next week.  I'll keep you posted if anything
happens.

Cheers,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Alan Hayward]

(Resending without email disclaimer)

> On 11 Jun 2018, at 23:56, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I hinted in a message I sent a couple of weeks ago on this mailing-list
> (https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-05/msg00821.html),
> we should be getting ready for the next GDB release branch (8.2).
> 
> So far, I have received the following requests. I tried to find
> relevant URLs whenever possible, but please update me if you have
> a better one.
> 
>  * (AlanH) gdb/gdbserver support for aarch64 SVE
>    [v2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00145.html
> 
>  * (PhilippeW) Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
>    [v2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00118.html
> 
>  * (SergioDJ) Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver
>    Latest update: received comments, waiting for new version:
>    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00238.html
> 
>  * (AndrewB) gdb: Don't drop SIGSTOP during stop_all_threads
>    Latest update: Reviewed and mostly OK'ed (minor comments)
>    Waiting for next version of the patch.
>    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00284.html
> 
> I would like very much to cut the branch by end of this month at
> the very latest. After that, we get into the summer holidays where
> things start getting slow, so I'd rather start before then.
> 
> Do you guys think you'll be able to make it?
> 
> -- 
> Joel

Most of the SVE patches are in now. I’ve just got four remaining:

[PATCH v2 02/10] Add Aarch64 SVE Linux headers
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00220.html
- Simon wanted to check with FSF people if it’s ok to include Linux headers.

[PATCH v2 05/10] Ptrace support for Aarch64 SVE
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00262.html
- Okayed (with nit changes). Commit blocked on 02/10

[PATCH v2 09/10] Ptrace support for AArch64 SVE gdbsever
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00270.html
- I need to respond. However, this will still be blocked on 02/10

[PATCH] Support large registers in regcache transfer_regset
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00303.html
- New. Replacement for 10/10. Requires review.

Assuming 2/10 gets okayed, this should all get done this week.


Thanks,
Alan.

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Simon Marchi]

On 2018-06-12 04:29, Alan Hayward wrote:
> Most of the SVE patches are in now. I’ve just got four remaining:
> 
> [PATCH v2 02/10] Add Aarch64 SVE Linux headers
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00220.html
> - Simon wanted to check with FSF people if it’s ok to include Linux 
> headers.

Hi Alan,

I'm not sure if you saw this reply here?

https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00219.html

Essentially, I'm suggesting we keep things simple if we want to get the 
SVE support in 8.2 and don't include the headers.  It would require 
users to build against the headers of a recent enough kernel, when 
building for AArch64 native.  I'm waiting for your answer on that.

Simon

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Philippe Waroquiers]

On Mon, 2018-06-11 at 15:56 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello everyone,
Hello Joel,

> 
>   * (PhilippeW) Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
>     [v2] https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00118.html
For this, I am waiting for comments, and unless the comments are asking
for heavy changes, I should be able to handle them quickly.

Thanks

Philippe

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> I hinted in a message I sent a couple of weeks ago on this mailing-list
Joel> (https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-05/msg00821.html),
Joel> we should be getting ready for the next GDB release branch (8.2).

I suspect that PR breakpoints/23300 is a regression, and maybe PR mi/23312
as well.  I plan to look at 23300 (though I don't mind if someone gets
there first).

Also I found out that this code in symfile.c:

      for (auto iter : new_objfiles)
	gdb::observers::new_objfile.notify (objfile);

... had a bug introduced by

    commit 4c404b8be6b1d8759eed50366207fc0e2e47d2b1
    Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
    Date:   Fri Apr 7 15:58:25 2017 -0600

        Use std::vector in reread_symbols

Previously it read:

-      for (ix = 0; VEC_iterate (objfilep, new_objfiles, ix, objfile); ix++)
-	observer_notify_new_objfile (objfile);

... where "objfile" was used in the iteration -- so now the wrong
objfile is being passed to the observers.

Fixing this is trivial, but I suppose a test case would be good.  Maybe
the simplest way would be a Python test (so it can hook into the
observer) plus a shared library?  I am actually not sure.  I guess I'm
sort of hoping not to write it.

Tom

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Joel Brobecker]

Hi Tom,

> Also I found out that this code in symfile.c:
> 
>       for (auto iter : new_objfiles)
> 	gdb::observers::new_objfile.notify (objfile);
> 
> ... had a bug introduced by
> 
>     commit 4c404b8be6b1d8759eed50366207fc0e2e47d2b1
>     Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
>     Date:   Fri Apr 7 15:58:25 2017 -0600
> 
>         Use std::vector in reread_symbols
> 
> Previously it read:
> 
> -      for (ix = 0; VEC_iterate (objfilep, new_objfiles, ix, objfile); ix++)
> -	observer_notify_new_objfile (objfile);
> 
> ... where "objfile" was used in the iteration -- so now the wrong
> objfile is being passed to the observers.
> 
> Fixing this is trivial, but I suppose a test case would be good.  Maybe
> the simplest way would be a Python test (so it can hook into the
> observer) plus a shared library?  I am actually not sure.  I guess I'm
> sort of hoping not to write it.

I'm hesitating on that one. Personally, I would accept the patch without
a testcase based on it being trivial; but on the other hand, it seems
worth giving the testcase a reasonable try, as I am hoping it might not
be an unreasonable amount of work to create it, and although the fix is
trivial, we did introduce that regression, so it's something that can
happen if we continue without a testcase.

-- 
Joel

Re: GDB 8.2 branch 2018-06-11 Update

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> I'm hesitating on that one. Personally, I would accept the patch without
Joel> a testcase based on it being trivial; but on the other hand, it seems
Joel> worth giving the testcase a reasonable try, as I am hoping it might not
Joel> be an unreasonable amount of work to create it, and although the fix is
Joel> trivial, we did introduce that regression, so it's something that can
Joel> happen if we continue without a testcase.

I'll try to write a test next week.

Tom