This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan
- From: Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
- To: "'Joel Brobecker'" <brobecker at adacore dot com>, "'Jakob Engblom'" <jakob at virtutech dot com>
- Cc: "'gdb at sourceware dot org'" <gdb at sourceware dot org>, "'Michael Snyder'" <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "'Hui Zhu'" <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:10:45 -0400
- Subject: RE: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan
- References: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> <daef60380909152346g3aba605pb3019d4088271f46@mail.gmail.com>
Oh yeah, and there's the Reverese MI patches that would be nice to have
in 7.0. I believe everything was approved but it is delayed by
the assignment. I guess there's nothing to do about that
until the legal stuff is resolved. Hopefully it can be
accepted after the branch.
Just it's not forgotten :-)
I believe the approvals are below by Eli and Volodya
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00050.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00051.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00512.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00534.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
> [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Hui Zhu
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:47 AM
> To: Joel Brobecker
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org; Michael Snyder
> Subject: Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> I think it's very close to branch.
>
> But prec still have some patches isn't in.
> I am not sure they can in 7.0 or not. Could you please help me with
> it? Thanks a lot. :)
>
> 1. [RFA] Make the prec support signal better
> Michael have check-in the test for signal. Without these patches.
> Testsuite will get fail.
>
> 2. Record segfault
> I posted a patch for it.
>
> 3. [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error
> Sames like 1.
>
> 4. [RFA] reverse debugging tests
> I think this patch can make reverse test more better.
>
> 5. set record query <on|off>
> You are working on it too. Wish we can find a good way to deal with
> query and MI.
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 00:44, Joel Brobecker
> <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I think everyone is anxious to see the next release out as fast as
> > we can; it is going to be a major step forward compared to
> the previous
> > releases!
> >
> > First, we need to make progress on the following documented issues:
> >
> > ?(a) Assert in frame.c:get_frame_arch
> > ? ? ?Basically, we added an assertion to get_frame_arch,
> which should
> > ? ? ?always be true. But to be safe, we decided to remove it from
> > ? ? ?the release sources if the release branch was cut before we had
> > ? ? ?enough time to field-test that change. ?We added that assertion
> > ? ? ?in January, so I think we can skip that item. ?I don't think we
> > ? ? ?ever tripped that assertion, did we?
> >
> > ?(b) Rename the python-support files to be 8.3-compliant.
> > ? ? ?I thought that the change had been approved, but I see that
> > ? ? ?the change has not been made. ?Has it been approved? If yes,
> > ? ? ?it is being held up because we don't know how to best rename
> > ? ? ?files without disturbing git?
> >
> > ?(c) varobj support for Python pretty-printing
> > ? ? ?Tom gave a quick status on IRC yesterday. It sounds like
> > ? ? ?there isn't much left to do. Perhaps a quick update on the Wiki
> > ? ? ?page to state exactly what's left would be nice. ?Unless fixing
> > ? ? ?the last thing or two might be faster ;-).
> >
> > ?(d) PR/9711: Quadratic slowdown for "where" command.
> > ? ? ?Pending catastrophes, I should be able to fix that this week.
> >
> > ?(e) PR/9786: Typing "info frame" immediately after connecting to
> > ? ? ?a remote target causes an assertion error on x86
> GNU/Linux (32 bit).
> > ? ? ?That's a real regression. ?I don't know that anyone ever looked
> > ? ? ?at this issue. I did reproduce the issue many moons
> ago. I don't
> > ? ? ?think it reproduces on x86_64. ?Any taker?
> >
> > ?(f) bug in breakpoint commands: commands not evaluated outside of
> > ? ? ?main command loop.
> > ? ? ?http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-07/msg00583.html
> > ? ? ?There is a suggested patch, but needs looking at. Any taker?
> >
> > If there are any issue that you know of that are *RELEASE-CRITICAL*
> > (build failure, regressions), please let us know, so we can decide
> > what to do, and possibly add it to the 7.0 TODO list. Anything else,
> > I suggest, should no longer be a priority for 7.0.
> >
> > In terms of dates, I would like us to try to release sooner
> rather than
> > later. Can I suggest we try to shoot for Wed Sep 9th for
> the branch date,
> > and then try to release a couple of weeks after (that would
> be the 23rd)?
> >
> > If there are any fixes that would be nice for the release
> but don't make
> > it to the 23rd, we can always have a corrective 7.0.1 release mid
> > December. Also, it sounds like a lot more new features are currently
> > being developed, and people are trying to make it for 7.0.
> I propose to
> > release 7.1 not too long after 7.0: Instead of waiting 6
> months, we could
> > release around end of January, early Feb (say: branch mid
> Jan, release
> > end of Jan).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Doug, you asked for a couple of weeks notice for 7.0. I'm
> being a little
> > more aggressive. Is this going to be an issue for you?
> >
> > --
> > Joel
> >
>