From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15803 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2014 20:02:54 -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 15791 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2014 20:02:52 -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-f169.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:02:51 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id vb8so19446879obc.0 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:02:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.198.133 with SMTP id w127mr4122542oif.74.1418673769413; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:02:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.185.7 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:02:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141215193658.GC5457@adacore.com> References: <20141125195444.GA3400@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20141213142351.GG5457@adacore.com> <20141215150609.GA4229@adacore.com> <20141215191244.GA23577@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20141215193658.GC5457@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:02:00 -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/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I'd like to backport >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-12/msg00116.html >> >> to 7.8 branch. > > This is a fairly big patch... > 1. How bad is performance without it? It was very bad, like > 100x slower. > 2. Can you find a binutils maintainer that will vouch that > this patch is 100% safe? As the x86 binutils maintainer, do I count? > The 7.8.2 is in the pipe because we found a number of crippling issues > in 7.8.1. At this point, we should only consider extra-safe patches, > or patches that fix issues considered to be blocking the use of 7.8.1. > For yours to qualify, you'll need to answer both questions above. > > -- > Joel -- H.J.