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>, Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:34:04 +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>
On 08/20/2014 05:41 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> As there's been fixed babeltrace versions for a while, I'd go with
> simply dropping the workaround, and have integrators build newer
> GDB with newer babeltrace. I suppose we have a testcase in our
> testsuite that fails if we remove the workaround and GDB is built with
> broken babeltrace? That should let the integrator know that it's
> building again a broken lib.
Yes, we have such test case, such as actions.exp, at least. Without
the workaround, GDB with libbabeltrace 1.1.0 will fail in actions.exp.
However, is it a good idea that let test failure signal a wrong version
lib is used? I am not sure. It is the configure's job to check whether
the library is wrong or broken.
>
> IOW, why do we still need to support 1.1.0?
No special reason, 1.1.0 was just used when I did the CTF work in GDB,
and was used on my laptop since then. IIRC, 1.1.0 was released in 2013
March, so it isn't very old and it might be used somewhere. Shouldn't
we be conservative in this case?
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
2. stop supporting or using a library, such as the UST stuff in GDBserver,
--
Yao (éå)