From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3211 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2012 14:32:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 3198 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2012 14:32:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:31:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075F51C7461 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HbdgvX0svAyg for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AF71C7459 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D9D44145616; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:32:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: gdb-7.5 status (branch?) Message-ID: <20120627143138.GO2799@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 Hello everyone, Time for a quick status update for the GDB 7.5 branch again. I see that the list of items in our TODO list has grown :-(. Sounds to me like the following could be checked in reasonably soon: # [Jan] [mingw] Fix "%lld" compilation error # [Jan] auto-load safe-path: Permit shell wildcards My thoughts & questions on some of the tickets: # [dje] Noticeable performance degradation with large C++ apps. There is a work-around of compiling with -fno-debug-type-sections, so optional? (if yes, probably a note in the release announcement) http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14002 # [dje] Performance issue with .gdb_index and large numbers of shared libs. Status? http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14125 # [dje] Fix inconsistency in blockvector addrmap vs non-addrmap handling At first, it sounded like the initial patch was fine. But then some more developments occurred. What can we do? Is it sufficient to apply the initial patch, and then fix other problem. Or is that first patch insufficient or incorrect? http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-06/msg00109.html # [Jan] -iex and -ix: Execute them _after_ gdbinits The proposal was surprisingingly controversial, but my understanding is that it is 3 GMs in favor versus 1 against. As much as I hate these situations, I think Jan should go ahead. It's not just a question of numbers: Jan designed an wrote the feature for his own needs, so I think he should have a stronger voice about what the feature should do. And since most GMs who expressed an opinion were in favor of the adjustment... http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-06/msg00549.html # I also have a set of changes for ia64-hpux, which fix a crash when debugging programs that use fork. But that's not critical. Hopefully I'll be able to commit in time. Based on this, should we branch, or not? Given the status on some of the issues, I think I'll wait a few more days to get those ones out of the way. I propose we re-evaluate again on Monday. -- Joel