From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27203 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 18:39:06 -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 27161 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 18:39:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 18:39:03 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-209-174.inter.net.il [80.230.209.174]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BNF02534; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:38:47 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:39:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: David Carlton Message-Id: <2427-Fri26Mar2004203610+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com In-reply-to: (message from David Carlton on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:58:13 -0800) Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 "frozen" Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <406361B3.5060308@gnu.org> <406375ED.1020708@gnu.org> <2914-Fri26Mar2004115305+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <2719-Fri26Mar2004192925+0300-eliz@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00680.txt.bz2 > From: David Carlton > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:58:13 -0800 > > Michael's reason for want to list > all regressions, if I understand him properly, is so that users can > check to see if anything has changed from 6.0 to 6.1 that would cause > them not to want to upgrade; I have a very hard time imagining a > scenario where any of the C++ issues that are listed would block an > upgrade. I tend to agree. I understand that the C++ support in 6.1 got much better, and that the number of resolved problem outnumbers the new ones. Michael, could you please comment? > So the only question, in my mind, is what issues are important enough > that users should be warned about them so we don't get lots of bug > reports; the breakpoints in constructors issue seems to me to qualify > (I get asked about that often enough at work) but the other issues > don't. Yes, I think this is the principle that should govern our decisions what to include in PROBLEMS. > Having said that, it is the case that I occasionally get asked at work > about why people are getting errors when casting, whereas I never get > asked about problems related to gdb/931, gdb/1512, or gdb/1516. So I > could see a case for keeping the mention of gdb/1518 in there as well. To me, the text you suggested sounds important enough to be added.