Re: GDB 7.0 regressions: s390(x)-linux, ppc(64)-linux, spu-elf

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>]

Joel Brobecker wrote:

> I was going to reply again to your initial email, going through each
> patch one by one, but since I already commented on some of the patches
> directly on gdb-patches, I'll reply to this message instead.

Thanks for your review!

> > - Put in the patches that are testsuite-only (7, 8, 9 in my list)
> >   They should be harmless and significantly clean up test suite
> >   results on some platforms
> 
> Yeah, I agree.

They're in the branch now.

> > - Put in the solely platform-specific patches (3, 5, 6)
> >   I've tested these, and they definitely help on those platforms
> 
>   3. Displaced stepping missing on S/390
>      This one seems safe. At worst, non-stop would still be broken...

Checked in.

>   5. PIE detection not enabled on PowerPC and S/390
>      I suggested we pass on this one because it's just a missing warning.
>      But it only affects the targets that you know much better than
>      I do, so I'll trust your judgement on this one.

Yeah, I guess we don't really need this one.

>   6. SPU gdbserver regressions when killing inferior
>      Agreed that it would be nice to have it for 7.0.

Checked in.

> > - The bitfield regression (1) seems a serious error affecting
> >   multiple platforms that really should be fixed, and the patch
> >   seems straightforward ...
> 
> I think it's OK to put this in 7.0 as well. Daniel reviewed
> your patch, so that's two pairs of eyes.

Checked in as well.

> > - The displaced stepping regression is unfortunate, as it completely
> >   breaks a new feature.  The patch *should* affect only PowerPC, but
> >   it does need to touch generic files (infrun.c), so there's always
> >   some risk.  In any case, I'd prefer to get at least some feedback
> >   before putting it in ...
> 
> This one seems a little more problematic indeed. Is that a regression
> compared to 6.8? If it is, perhaps we could try to get it fixed for
> 7.0.1 instead?

This is now in mainline, but not yet the branch.  It is not strictly a
regression, as 6.8 did not support the non-stop feature at all.  However,
the current state on the branch is that 7.0 does support the feature,
you can enable it without warning, and then if you run the program, you
may see (unpredictable) segmentation faults or other crashes due to
execution running beyond the displaced instruction copy into random
memory ...

Due to the severity of the problem I'd prefer to have the fix in 7.0.
But if you'd rather do a 7.0.1 I guess I can live with that as well.
Let me know whether I should check it in ...

> > - The Obj-C changes are not really a regression, so it may not really
> >   be critical to put those in.  On the other hand, they just touch
> >   Obj-C code (except for one PowerPC-specific bugfix), and they 
> >   drastically improve the situation on PowerPC-64, so it would be
> >   nice ...  Again, I'd definitely like some feedback first.
> 
> Given the severity of the problem (SEGV), I think we should put your
> patch in 7.0.

This is now checked in (mainline and branch) as well.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com