GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Joel Brobecker
Hi everyone,

As you will see in the report below, a lot of been fixed since
the last update, but also we've also added a lot of new items.
To allow the process to converge, I propose we stop accepting
new items that aren't deemed blocking for the release.

For those who have items listed below, if you are blocked or
waiting for a review, please start pinging after the usual
waiting period (2 weeks after initial send, and weekly thereafter).

For those of us who have experience with the areas of the code
that the patches below are waiting on, and you have some time
to review them, that would be very helpful.

Thank you, everyone!

Fixed Since the Previous Update:
--------------------------------

Nice work guys!

  * [AndrewB]
    Fix Python unwinders and inline frames
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169789.html

  * [Pedro/Simon (reported by SimonM)] <PR gdb/26199>
    GDB goes in busy loop when interrupting non-stop program
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26199

  * [SebastianH (review by AndrewB] <PR sim/26194>
    sim/igen: Fix linker error with GCC-10/-fno-common
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170083.html

  * [SebastianH (review by AndrewB]
    sim/ppc: Fix linker error with GCC-10/-fno-common
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170084.html

  * [SandraL]
    Skip directory tests in gdb.base/info_sources.exp on remote host
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169894.html

  * [SandraL]
    Fix POSIX-isms in gdb.base/shell.exp
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169865.html
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170483.html

  * [PaulC] <PR gdb/25716>
    Modify Docs to avoid HTML filename collision on Windows
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25716
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169739.html
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170232.html

Added Since the Last Update:
----------------------------

  * [KevinB] <PR gdb/25631>
    GDB cannot access unwritten-to mmap'd buffer from core file
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25631

    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170158.html

    Pedro sent minor comments on 2020-07-10, but is otherwise happy
    with the patch series, so hopefully it gets pushed soon.

  * [SandraL]
    testsuite: gdb_wrapper handling polluting source directory with .o files
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170224.html

    Touches gdb.exp. No review so far. Not critical, IMO, but would
    be nice to at least review the patch. This seems like a regression
    compared to GDB 9.

Other Ongoing Items:
--------------------

  * [TomT/HannesD] <PR win32/25302>
    Mismatching fstat() function calls in gdb_bfd_open() and cache_bstat()
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25302

    Latest discussion at:
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169670.html
    Tom said he hasn't had time to look at Pedro's reply, unfortunately.
    I'm not super confident that he'll have much time soon either.
    Should we start looking at Plan B?

  * [RainerO]
    Unify Solaris procfs and largefile handling
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169977.html

    Seems to require a fair amount of coordination. binutils approved
    that part of the patch. Waiting for a review on the GDB side (the part
    in config/ is only used by GDB, so we will review it on the GDB side
    as well).

  * [LudovicC (reported by Simon)]
    Add support for Guile 2.2
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169936.html

    Was reviewed by Simon, who conducted the best review he could
    considering he doesn't know the area of the code well enough.
    We've been waiting for a more experienced maintainer to comment,
    with no success, so I suggested we go with Simon's review.

  * [EliZ]
    binutils: libctf build failure on Windows with mingw.org's MinGW
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170042.html

    2020-07-18: Joel just sent Nick a ping.

  * [ChristianB (reported by Eli)]
    Update gnulib to include fixes needed for mingw.org's MinGW
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169987.html
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170059.html

    On going, but good progress since.

  * [EliZ]
    gdbserver: incorrect socklen_t configure test on mingw.org's MinGW
    https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170019.html

    Eli and Joel exchanged patches, but I don't see anything having
    been officially submitted yet?

Not Critical, but Requested:
----------------------------

  <none>


--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:45:22 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email],
> [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email],
> [hidden email], [hidden email]
>
>   * [EliZ]
>     gdbserver: incorrect socklen_t configure test on mingw.org's MinGW
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170019.html
>
>     Eli and Joel exchanged patches, but I don't see anything having
>     been officially submitted yet?

Joel, are you waiting for me here?  If so, what shall I do?  I thought
you'll go ahead and install the changes you sent me and I tested.

Thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Joel Brobecker
> > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:45:22 -0700
> > From: Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email],
> > [hidden email], [hidden email], [hidden email],
> > [hidden email], [hidden email]
> >
> >   * [EliZ]
> >     gdbserver: incorrect socklen_t configure test on mingw.org's MinGW
> >     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170019.html
> >
> >     Eli and Joel exchanged patches, but I don't see anything having
> >     been officially submitted yet?
>
> Joel, are you waiting for me here?  If so, what shall I do?  I thought
> you'll go ahead and install the changes you sent me and I tested.

It must have been a misunderstanding. I was indeed hoping you would be
the one submitting the patch. I was only helping you re-generate the
configury scripts to help you avoid having to get the exact versions
we expect to use, when generating them. I would be happy to help submit
them for you if I wasn't already unsuccesful myself in submitting my
own patches :-(.

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Rainer Orth-2
In reply to this post by Joel Brobecker
Hi Joel,

> Other Ongoing Items:
> --------------------
[...]
>   * [RainerO]
>     Unify Solaris procfs and largefile handling
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169977.html
>
>     Seems to require a fair amount of coordination. binutils approved

as I'd mentionen before: no coordination required, just a GDB review ;-)

While GCC hosts the master copy of config/largefile.m4, it isn't used
anywhere in that tree.

>     that part of the patch. Waiting for a review on the GDB side (the part
>     in config/ is only used by GDB, so we will review it on the GDB side
>     as well).

Actually, ACX_LARGEFILE defined there is used on both sides.  However,
the primary benefit is for GDB, so an additional review with that in
mind would certainly be helpful.

Thanks.
        Rainer

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Joel Brobecker
> >   * [RainerO]
> >     Unify Solaris procfs and largefile handling
> >     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169977.html
> >
> >     Seems to require a fair amount of coordination. binutils approved
>
> as I'd mentionen before: no coordination required, just a GDB review ;-)
>
> While GCC hosts the master copy of config/largefile.m4, it isn't used
> anywhere in that tree.

Grumpf. Copy/paste/edit error. I added the note about not having to
coordinate the part in config/, but then forgot to remove the initial
sentence. I amended my local copy, so hopefully I won't repeat that!

> >     that part of the patch. Waiting for a review on the GDB side (the part
> >     in config/ is only used by GDB, so we will review it on the GDB side
> >     as well).
>
> Actually, ACX_LARGEFILE defined there is used on both sides.  However,
> the primary benefit is for GDB, so an additional review with that in
> mind would certainly be helpful.

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Tom Tromey-2
In reply to this post by Joel Brobecker
>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]> writes:

Joel>   * [TomT/HannesD] <PR win32/25302>
Joel>     Mismatching fstat() function calls in gdb_bfd_open() and cache_bstat()
Joel>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25302

Joel>     Latest discussion at:
Joel>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169670.html
Joel>     Tom said he hasn't had time to look at Pedro's reply, unfortunately.
Joel>     I'm not super confident that he'll have much time soon either.
Joel>     Should we start looking at Plan B?

I don't know what to do about this one.


I'd like to add https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26197 to
the list.  This is a rust regression that came from the variant part
rewrite.  I was able to reproduce it with the official rust 1.12, which
is especially disappointing because the only reason I even have that
installed was to test this code.

Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Joel Brobecker
> I'd like to add https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26197 to
> the list.  This is a rust regression that came from the variant part
> rewrite.  I was able to reproduce it with the official rust 1.12, which
> is especially disappointing because the only reason I even have that
> installed was to test this code.

Thanks for pointing that one out, Tom. I've set the Target Milestone
for that PR to 10.1.

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Sourceware - gdb-patches mailing list
In reply to this post by Joel Brobecker
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 12:45:22 -0700
Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   * [KevinB] <PR gdb/25631>
>     GDB cannot access unwritten-to mmap'd buffer from core file
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25631
>
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170158.html
>
>     Pedro sent minor comments on 2020-07-10, but is otherwise happy
>     with the patch series, so hopefully it gets pushed soon.

I sent a v5 series to the list:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170686.html

Pedro reviewed it, finding a minor problem.  That problem was
fixed and the series has been pushed.  I've also closed the bug.

Kevin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Joel Brobecker
> I sent a v5 series to the list:
>
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-July/170686.html
>
> Pedro reviewed it, finding a minor problem.  That problem was
> fixed and the series has been pushed.  I've also closed the bug.

Nicely done, Kevin :). And thanks a lot for having taken the time
to let me know. This is helpful for me.

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-07-18 Update

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Joel Brobecker
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:03:41 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> > Joel, are you waiting for me here?  If so, what shall I do?  I thought
> > you'll go ahead and install the changes you sent me and I tested.
>
> It must have been a misunderstanding. I was indeed hoping you would be
> the one submitting the patch. I was only helping you re-generate the
> configury scripts to help you avoid having to get the exact versions
> we expect to use, when generating them. I would be happy to help submit
> them for you if I wasn't already unsuccesful myself in submitting my
> own patches :-(.

I'll gladly do that, but unfortunately I've managed to lose the
configure.ac test you sent to me, which was different from what I
originally proposed.  Could you please re-send it to me?

Sorry for my sloppiness.