From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3436 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2003 14:56:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3426 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 14:56:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 14:56:13 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18t9Xc-00051t-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:57:20 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18t7eD-0000hU-00; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:56:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , bob_rossi@cox.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, nick@nick.uklinux.net Subject: Re: [rfc] Annotation level THREE Message-ID: <20030312145601.GA2636@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , bob_rossi@cox.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, nick@nick.uklinux.net References: <200303120609.h2C69h904491@duracef.shout.net> <3E6F491A.4050401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E6F491A.4050401@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:50:02AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Hi Andrew, > > > > > >>With this and its doco in, I think 5.4 is clear to go (or at least try > >>to). > > > > > >The last time I looked in detail was 2003-02-16: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-02/msg00257.html > > > >At that time, there were still several high priority PR's about build > >issues; x86-64 regresions; and java fails the 'break main' test. > > > >Do you care about any of these things? > > `or at least try to'. As far as I know this is the only feature that > could block the next release. It's critical that a GDB release > containing this be made soon. > > - x86-64 was always broken Eh, I believe that x86-64 worked in GDB 5.3, judging from Michal's comments. > - java improvements would be nice > > A real concern is that `long long' regression. It's down the road behind my currently pending DWARF-2 patch. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer