On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > 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.
I agree that crashing GDB isn't desirable, we should avoid that for 4.6.0. Richard.