From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7286 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2004 17:43:50 -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 7276 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 17:43:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 17:43:49 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id D033FBFF5; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:43:48 -0800 (PST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS References: <405B1CE3.2070007@gnu.org> <405B2EF0.6050009@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <405B2EF0.6050009@gnu.org> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:36 -0500") 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/msg00461.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:33:36 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: >> That aside, I don't like the current design. > [which "current"? :-)] Sorry, I meant "your proposed". > As for some of the others, I think they would be better served as > notes in the documentation (i.e., gdb.texinfo). That's a good point - if we want to make users aware of certain well-known bugs, then gdb.texinfo is a much more visible place than PROBLEMS. (Nobody will see PROBLEMS other than possibly the specific individual, if any, who is installing that version of GDB by hand.) GCC has a section of known bugs in its manual; we should follow suit. >> 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? The "breakpoints in constructors" bug isn't fixed in mainline, either. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com