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 |
> 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. |
> > 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 |
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 |
> > * [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 |
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 |
> 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 |
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 |
> 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 |
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. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |