From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28830 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 17:58:15 -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 28823 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 17:58:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 17:58:14 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id C1CF2CDB5; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:58:13 -0800 (PST) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 "frozen" References: <406361B3.5060308@gnu.org> <406375ED.1020708@gnu.org> <2914-Fri26Mar2004115305+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <2719-Fri26Mar2004192925+0300-eliz@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <2719-Fri26Mar2004192925+0300-eliz@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:29:25 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00671.txt.bz2 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:29:25 +0200, "Eli Zaretskii" said: >> From: David Carlton >> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:00:42 -0800 >> I have mixed feelings about Michael's desire of mentioning >> everything that could be called a regression, no matter how small, >> in PROBLEMS. > Me too. Do you feel that this specific issue is not important > enough to be in PROBLEMS? Personally, I wouldn't list any of the C++ issues other than the breakpoints in constructors bug. 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. 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. 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. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com