This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: --with-babeltrace generates many FAILs
- From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:48:30 +0800
- Subject: Re: --with-babeltrace generates many FAILs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140816204614 dot GA7000 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <53F3457E dot 5030205 at codesourcery dot com> <20140819140755 dot GA30208 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <53F41DE5 dot 1010406 at codesourcery dot com> <53F46D48 dot 2060200 at redhat dot com> <53F487AC dot 7070606 at codesourcery dot com> <53F4A907 dot 9080504 at redhat dot com> <53F57B66 dot 1030602 at codesourcery dot com> <53F5EA99 dot 9060107 at redhat dot com>
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> Right. From your description, newer babeltrace rejects the workaround
> because it's more strict now, which I read as the workaround
> somehow knowingly violating the CTF spec, hence, the workaround
> assuming babeltrace or other CTF consumers would remain lax. The
> point was that CTF generated by a GDB with 1.1.0 wouldn't be readable
> by a GDB with 1.1.2, and vice-versa. If it remains in place, the
> assumption that we can infer whether a workaround will be necessary
> or usable from the babeltrace version that is used to build the
> producer GDB isn't strictly correct. But maybe "assumption" was a
> too strong word. (I hope you didn't feel I was pointing fingers at
> you or something. Certainly not intended!)
No, I didn't feel that :) I'd like people know the status and problem
clearly and make people on the same page.
>>>>> >> > In general, GDB and GDBserver uses a set of libraries, what are the
>>>>> >> > criteria of
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > 1. stop supporting a version of a library, such as libbabeltrace 1.1.0
>>> > When the burden of supporting it outweighs the benefits?
>>> >
>> That is still too abstract to operate, IMO.
>
> Kind of just as abstract as the question. :-)
>
> The "benefit" is being able to take advantage of the library's features.
> The "burden" is the cost/effort required to use the library and workaround
> any issues it might have. When there are bugfix releases that postdate
> a given version, I think the effort to support the older unfixed version
> isn't so much worth it. The bugs have been fixed at the source, and we
> can simply require builders/integrators upgrade to the latest bugfix
> release (that's what bugfix/stable releases are for!). Thus, IMO, the
> existence of bugfix releases makes the burden of maintaining support
> for old unfixed versions outweigh the benefits, as we can alternatively
> just say "not our problem: build against the latest fixed version
> instead, please".
This is clear to me.
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] Remove workaround to libbabeltrace 1.1.0 issue
>
> This looks good to me.
>
Patch is pushed in. Thanks.
--
Yao (éå)