From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1161 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2011 18:12:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 1152 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2011 18:12:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YM,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p58ICOUk031737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-113-49.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.49]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p58ICMHs015834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p58ICLua032386; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:12:21 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p58ICKgM032379; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:12:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:12:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gdb@sourceware.org Cc: Keith Seitz Subject: gdb-7.3 blocker(s) - breakpoint/linespec Message-ID: <20110608181219.GA23350@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 Hi, I was asked to restate the pending patches which IMO block the gdb-7.3 release: http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_7.3_Release Particularly the part: DWARF2/physname regression PR c++/12506: which I consider rather as a general catch-all of the physname regressions: gdb-7.1: some baseline 42284fd: physname applied gdb-7.2: some regressions like PR c++/12506 can be seen gdb-7.3: There should be no regressions against either gdb-7.1 or gdb-7.2. The last point is tricky as physname brought in some new features so one cannot even revert it if one would want to. One such new gdb-7.2 feature was tab-completable name `name(params)' for template functions with demangled name `int name(params)'. There was patch by Keith: [RFA] c++/12506 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-03/msg00189.html but that one is concluded as invalid. (The testcase may be applicable.) There is now patch by Keith: [RFA] 12266 (typedef'd parameters) revisited again http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00062.html which I already commented in Re: [RFA] 12266 (typedef'd parameters) revisited again - what should go for gdb-7.3? http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00101.html as a summary: * also fixes PR 12506 - but the DW_TAG_linkage_name reader of mine is a more complete fix - as long as gcc still produces DW_TAG_MIPS_linkage_name. * implements new feature to: break funcname(typedefparam1,typedefparam2) But such specification never worked in any GDB before so I do not find it a gdb-7.3 blocker. It may be an important enough feature to land it on the branch (IMO not - 7.3 is very late now, let the other maintainers decide). Then there are patches by me which try to catch any regressions since gdb-7.1 by gdb-breakpoint*.pl test scripts crafted for this purpose and posted in: Re: [RFA] 12266 (typedef'd parameters) revisited again http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00067.html One test run takes 4 hours on my box which is a bit inconvenient. I have tested everything only on libstdc++.so and libwebkitgtk.so and only one particular `break' type in GDB. I do not say the fixes I push for fix all the regressions but it is at least the first step, IMO sufficient to be able to at least place a breakpoint some way - like people want to in various bugreports. Mandatory patches to fix physname regressions (=against FSF gdb-7.1). They are in no particular order but with one-line fix ups they are all applicable: [patch] Remove DMGL_VERBOSE http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00036.html - Unreplied, I find it mostly [obv]ious. Re: [patch] Follow DW_AT_linkage_name for methods #2 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00040.html - Already approved but it waits on GCC approval of its libiberty/ part: [gcc patch 0/3] libiberty: New DMGL_RET_DROP http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00150.html [patch 1/2] physname reg.: linespec minsym fallback http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00079.html - In fact unreplied. [patch 2/2] physname reg.: linespec eager keep_name_info http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00080.html - Unreplied. Re: [patch] physname regression: Non-matching type false breakpoint http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00089.html - Replied (possibly approved) by Pedro. The patches above give me zero gdb-breakpoint*.pl regressions as stated in that mail referenced above: Re: [RFA] 12266 (typedef'd parameters) revisited again http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00067.html Additionally related to this patches: Re: [patch] Fix C++ demangling of minsyms with symver http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00045.html - Looks like approved but this has never been a regressions and the fix IMO does not affect real world users, planning to check it only in gdb-7.4+. Related Bugs I have opened which are not fixed but they are not regressions: Assertion `found' failed. http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12822 - My fix of PR 12573 was incomplete waiting on gcc -frecord-gcc-switches (GCC PR 32998), not sure if it the reason here or not. physname: discrepancies between DW_AT_name and demangler http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12823 - It is more an item to check for future DW_AT_linkage_name-less size-optimized .debug files depending on correct physname computation. Too slow break on -O2 -g code http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12828 - GDB hangs expanding CUs, it is strongly interdependent with PR 10738 (Cannot set breakpoint on inlined function). Thanks, Jan