From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27498 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2014 22:11:40 -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 27472 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2014 22:11:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f176.google.com) (209.85.214.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:11:35 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id vb8so20071736obc.7 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:11:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.193.5 with SMTP id r5mr1684136oif.128.1418681493383; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.185.7 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:11:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141125195444.GA3400@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20141213142351.GG5457@adacore.com> <20141215150609.GA4229@adacore.com> <20141215191244.GA23577@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20141215193658.GC5457@adacore.com> <20141215204143.GD5457@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 22:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [commit 7.8] [patch+7.8] Fix 7.8 regression: resolve_dynamic_struct: Assertion `TYPE_NFIELDS (type) > 0' (PR 17642) From: "H.J. Lu" To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jan Kratochvil , GDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> > This is a fairly big patch... >>> > 1. How bad is performance without it? >>> >>> It was very bad, like > 100x slower. >> >> OK, but 100x slower than 1usec is still unnoticeable. When did you start >> noticing it, for what kind of program (size?), and what type of delay >> were you seeing? Also, is that a regression compared to 7.7? The idea >> is that, if it's just a second or two, or even ten, that's still quite >> bearable, and unless you are absolutely sure that your patch is safe, >> perhaps we should pass... >> >>> > 2. Can you find a binutils maintainer that will vouch that >>> > this patch is 100% safe? >>> >>> As the x86 binutils maintainer, do I count? >> >> Absolutely. I just need someone who knows the code well enough to >> be trusted with its maintainance to stand behind the code and >> confirm that it is considered safe. In this case, I need extra safe, >> considering the fact that this is a .2 release. >> >> I hope I've described my concerns well enough for you to make >> the decision. Now that I have explained my thought process, I feel >> you're more qualified to make an informed decision now. Your call. >> >> Please remember that, if you do push it to 7.8, you'll need a PR >> associated to is so you can document the fix in the release wiki >> page (see fixes in GDB 7.8.2): >> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_7.8_Release > > The bug was filed against bintuils: > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17677 > > since the code in question is in bfd. But the actual bug is for GDB: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdb/+bug/1388999 > > where the issues was observed. I will retest by my patch and > backport it to 7.8 branch. > There is no regression in GDB 7.8 testsuite. I pushed my change into 7.8 branch. Its PR is https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17677 Thanks. -- H.J.