Hey folks, I just want to make sure we are on the same page here:
1) Andrew is talking about using the gdbjit interface and generated DWARF information. I believe this wouldn't work for interpreted code, because there is no JIT information emitted for it. It would also require extra work to make it work for core dumps, because you would need some sort of post-mortem way of getting the DWARF information. 2) RedHat has a lot more sway over gdb than we do, especially this part of gdb. If you folks *don't* want our patch in gdb, please speak up soon! If you folks are going to go your own way with this, it will make our attempts to get this into gdb irrelevant. Also, if you *do* want our patch in gdb, please speak up soon! It would be great to hear from you, since we've been desperately trying to get the gdb community to accept this patch for the better part of a year, and we're having to beg, plead and cajole code reviews out of people. 3) If the community does like our approach, we still have no idea what we need to do to get it accepted in OpenJDK. As Sasha says, we believe the licenses are compatible, but we will still have to come to some agreement about what direction to go. Thanks! Jeremy On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Alexander Smundak <asmun...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > It would be, long term. I've been discussing this with Red Hat's GDB > > group and I'm hoping to come up with a proposal and hopefully some > > working code. > I have the enabling patch to GDB being reviewed at a glacial pace (see > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-12/msg00408.html). Perhaps > Red Hat's GDB group can respond there? >
