This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR debug/47510
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:10:46 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: PR debug/47510
- References: <m31v3x10hv.fsf@redhat.com> <m3hbcmie83.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3d3n8esou.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3mxkxuzbe.fsf@redhat.com> <4D80E390.50605@redhat.com> <m3pqpqltmu.fsf@redhat.com> <4D81548F.4000803@codesourcery.com> <m3ipvij96w.fsf@redhat.com>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Yesterday after discussing this on IRC, Jakub expressed his personal
> opinion by saying the patch could go in 4.6. I mistakenly took it as a
> formal approval from the RMs and I committed it. I should have waited
> for an approval by email. So I have just reverted the patch from 4.6
> now. Sorry for that.
>
> Back to the discussion now :-)
>
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> > On 3/16/2011 1:04 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> >
> >> Would the RMs (in CC) object to this patch going into 4.6?
>
> > What would be the justification for that?
>
> It's a regression from 4.5, caused by the fix for PR c++/44188. One of
> the observed side effect is that a DW_TAG_typedef DIE can now have
> children DIEs. That is not desirable in itself and makes GDB crash.
>
> > I don't see any evidence that this is a regression
>
> This is because the bug wasn't flagged as a regression. It is now.
>
> > A bug that affects debugging is never *that* serious compared to (for
> > example) silent wrong-code generation.
>
> I agree that fixing silent wrong-code generation bugs is always
> paramount. But I believe that a bug that suddenly leads GDB to a crash
> is not something we would want to let happen at this point either.
I agree that crashing GDB isn't desirable, we should avoid that
for 4.6.0.
Richard.