From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30579 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2004 17:33:39 -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 30562 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 17:33:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 17:33:37 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C262B92; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <405B2EF0.6050009@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS References: <405B1CE3.2070007@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 > That aside, I don't like the current design. [which "current"? :-)] > The earlier design had a > list of (sometimes fairly trivial) regressions since 6.0, coupled with > a much more serious outstanding problem; these two shouldn't be mixed. > If we decide that we don't want regressions since 6.0 to be in a > separate section, then we should apply the same criteria to everything > listed under the header "C++ support" (or whatever), and decide to > either only list serious bugs or else list every problem that we know > about. The current list of C++ problems needs some serious editing. For instance: gdb/1512: no canonical way to output names of C++ types (which is about gdb printing "const char *" vs "char const *") can hardly be described as "mission critical". Contrast it to JeffJ's discovery that GDB can't debug an NPTL threaded program that does a thread delete/create, outch! (but something we likely won't mention in problems). As for some of the others, I think they would be better served as notes in the documentation (i.e., gdb.texinfo). > Personally, the old division makes more sense to me: a list of all > regressions, plus some more serious outstanding issues. Obviously the > header "Regressions since 5.3" should be changed, however. How about: serious problems that have been fixed in the mainline but are too nasty to backport? Andrew