Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:10:53AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> This is IMHO better than just ``in worse shape'', but it's still not
> detailed enough.  I, for one, don't understand the real meaning of
> ``decent backtraces''.  What does it mean? do I get garbage in some or
> all frames? does the backtrace stop short of showing be the whole
> picture? which frames are susceptible and what can I do to alleviate
> that (compilation options, perhaps)?  Etc., etc.

All of the above problems are likely.  Relevant compiler options tend
to vary by architecture.

> Also, are there actually targets that use the old frame stuff _and_
> use glibc?  (It strikes me that the crazy techniques used by glibc are
> as guilty for breaking GDB as the oldish targets.)

It actually has more to do with GCC than glibc, except for the
recurring problems with syscall unwinders - generic hunks of assembly
code that, in the new model, we can annotate with unwind information.
Yes, several glibc targets still use the old code, but the number's
shrunk drastically since 6.1.  IIRC the PPC target has been converted
in HEAD but not 6.1.  I think there's at least one more.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer