[gdb] Pushing the D patches upstream (again)

Leandro Lucarella llucax at gmail.com
Mon Apr 19 11:12:10 PDT 2010


Robert Clipsham, el  9 de abril a las 22:43 me escribiste:
> After working on the debug information produced by dmd recently, I
> started wondering what happened to the efforts to get the gdb
> patches pushed upstream.
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3207
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10142
> 
> After reading the threads attached to these bug reports I thought
> I'd ask the gdb developers what the current status was. Here's a log
> of the conversation we had on IRC (on chat.freenode.net in #gdb):

Thanks for picking up this! I was following it but got lost in the
paperwork.

> ( mrmonday) does anyone here know the status of
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10142 ?
> ( tromey) ISTR that we're waiting for a patch refresh
> ( tromey) or maybe some bit of paperwork
> ( tromey) I do think the patch was reviewed and needed a few changes
> ( tromey) but I forget exactly what
> ( mrmonday) it'd be good if we knew what, I've been doing quite a
> bit of work regarding the debug info produced by the main D compiler
> to make sure it's playing nicely with GDB, if there's anything I can
> do to help get the patches moved along it'd be good to know
> ( tromey) I'm looking for the thread but having trouble finding it
> ( tromey) yeah, I can't find it readily
> ( tromey) we really rely on contributors to ping their patches or to
> rewrite them after a review
> ( mrmonday) hmm, guess we need to chase some people up then if we
> want gdb to support D
> ( tromey) the paperwork might already all be done, I am not positive
> ( tromey) basically a patch like this needs someone to champion it
> ( mrmonday) and what does that involve?
> ( tromey) nothing formal :)
> ( tromey) just submitting it, then dealing with the review
> ( tromey) fixing whatever issues there are
> ( tromey) from my POV, what happened with this patch is that it got
> reviewed, then the submitters disappeared

I think there was never been a formal review of the patch, because the
lack of copyright assignment. I thought the merge was stucked in the
paperwork, not in the review.

The problem is, the original authors are not *that* interested in
following this right now AFAIK. At least John Demme has dissapeared a long
time ago (it was hard to contact him) and I don't know what is Mihail
Zenkov doing right now, maybe we have a better chance to have some help
from him.

> ( mrmonday) that story sounds far too common :s
> ( tromey) :)
> ( mrmonday) what would be needed to get it back off the ground again?
> ( tromey) two things
> ( tromey) first, verify that anybody who contributed to the patch
> has signed paperwork
> ( tromey) second, somebody (who has also signed paperwork) to
> resubmit the patch and then respond to reviews, ping it if it
> languishes, etc

This is the tricky part, I don't know if John Demme and Mihail
Zenkov want to do this. I hope that the modifications to the patch needed
to be accepted could be done by somebody else.

> So it seems what is needed is to:
> a) Find out the status of the paperwork
> b) Get the patch up to scratch and resubmit it
> 
> As Leandro Lucarella was heading up the efforts last time, he is
> probably the best person to talk to about part a.

All I know is in the bugs comments. I was waiting from some sort of
GDB/FSF response before starting to poke people again :)

> If that's all up to scratch, then we need to sort out the patch. To do
> this, we need to:
> 
> 1) Update the patch to gdb head
> 2) Sort out the formatting issues so it matches the GNU style
> guidelines (http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html - fun
> task :))

The formatting part is easy, probably the only thing needed is to run the
indent program with the -gnu option :)

I don't know if they have naming conventions or other things that need
manual intervention.

> 3) This seems to be the thread where it was discussed before (Not
> 100% though, there may be others):
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-01/msg00204.html - We need
> to scour this thread and make sure everything in the patch is as
> requested. From my quick flick through it seems that the patch was
> almost ready for inclusion in gdb 7.1 but didn't quite make it.

Ok, it looks like there was a review, I guess I missed those threads. So
the thing is more advanced that I thought! =)

> While we're on the topic of gdb patches, it might also be good to
> note http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4044 which is a
> tracker bug for all gdb and debugging info related issues. A few of
> these have patches which are awaiting review or inclusion, and some
> need looking at... It could be good to get these issues fixed before
> the patch is included in gdb.
> 
> It seems that Mihail Zenkov is currently pushing for this too, as
> he's the current maintainer of the gdb-patches at
> http://dsource.org/projects/gdb-patches/, and according to the
> thread linked above he's been actively involved in getting the patch
> up to date (it seems there's a more recent patch in the thread than
> the repository, I'm not sure how up to date it is).

We should try to contact Mihail again then, he was very friendly and
helpful when I did.

> I'd be interested to know if anyone knows the current status of the
> D patches and what needs doing to get them included, it seems we're
> getting close to where we need to be to get D support into
> mainstream gdb, we just need the last push though.

Thanks for pushing this forward again! I kinda forgot about it =)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list