From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29208 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2003 15:37:32 -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 29196 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2003 15:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 24 Feb 2003 15:37:32 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703D3294F; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:39:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5A3CC5.3080700@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:37:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] new test, pr-1090.exp, multi-register variables References: <200302240435.h1O4ZVb07087@duracef.shout.net> <3E59C9D9.3040906@redhat.com> <20030224142146.GA24769@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00581.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 02:29:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Just FYI, >> > >> >To my mind, these are critical bugs, because gdb quietly prints the >> >wrong information. If we can't fix it for 5.4/6.0 then I want to >> >add gdb/214 and gdb/1090 to the PROBLEMS file. > >> >> The only critical thing in GDB 5.4/6.0 is ensuring that the new EMACS >> mode has everything it needs without relying on level two annotiations. >> And that has a very hard deadline :-( > > > I beg to differ. Why should Emacs dictate our schedule? Why shouldn't > critical debugging issues? Did you read the thread on gdb@? GDB is a member of the GNU project and as such, it is expected to balance its own objectives against those of the larger GNU community. If GDB doesn't fix a debugging problem in this release, it can can be fixed in the next release. However, if GDB doesn't get the MI working quick smart, GDB maintainaers (i.e., you) will be stuck maintaining annotation level two from now until eternity. Andrew