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.