GDB 10.2 Release -- 2021-04-11 update

[Kevin Buettner]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:39:20 +0400
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

>   * [Simon/Kevin] <PR gdb/27526>
>     Attaching to threaded process on glibc 2.33: libthread_db fails to initialize with "generic error"
> 
>     Patch proposed here:
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-March/177369.html
> 
>     Discussed there:
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/177477.html
> 
>     The issue is about GDB triggering an error when trying to attach
>     to a process on systems that have upgraded to Glibc 2.33. So,
>     theoretically, users in that situation could also try to run
>     their program from GDB and debug that instead.
> 
>     Do we know how widely deployed glibc-2.33 is?

glibc-2.33 will be used in Fedora 34, which is in beta now.  I would
guess that other distributions will use glibc-2.33 for their upcoming
releases too.

>     This looks like a difficult issue to solve, with both GDB *and*
>     GDBserver needing a fix, and no clear indication that I could see
>     that they would be getting a similar fix. With that in mind,
>     I'm wondering if we shouldn't give ourselves a deadline after which
>     we simply accept this as a known limitation of the 10.2 release,
>     and work on fixing it for the GDB 11 release instead.

So... I have the beginnings of a patch for gdbserver.  I'm tracking
down some regressions though, so don't have anything I can share
quite yet.

I agree with giving ourselves a short deadline for fixing this problem
(and the rest of your approach).

> 
>     Speaking of the GDB 11 release, my thinking was that we should be
>     starting the process immediately after the 10.2 release is out.
>     So we'd be looking at maybe a couple of months between now and
>     the GDB 11 release. In other words, if we manage to fix this glibc-2.33
>     issues soon, and we don't have too many difficulties stabilizing
>     the GDB 11 release, the fix should be in a release pretty quickly.
> 
>     If people agree, I suggest we give this problem 1 or 2 weeks max,
>     and then we release with what we have.
> 
>     Thoughts?

Sounds good too me.

Kevin