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 <m...@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.
--
Dodji
