From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3116 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2002 23:30:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2989 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2002 23:30:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 23:30:07 -0000 Received: from localhost.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02110; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ezannoni@localhost) by localhost.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g09MgqT01922; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:42:52 -0500 From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15420.51052.85383.587125@localhost.cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:30:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.2 or GDB 5.1.1? In-Reply-To: <20020109182054.B16868@nevyn.them.org> References: <3C3CBCB8.90401@redhat.com> <20020109182054.B16868@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:57:12PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm looking over all the things in my 5.1.1 folder and am beginning to > > think that it might be better if instead just move onto 5.2. I really > > don't know if it is worth all the effort (well mine and a few others) of > > pulling those changes onto a branch. All the C++ fixes, the HP/UX host > > stuff and so on. > > > > For this to work, all the proposed release criteria for 5.2 would need > > to be droped. > > > > thoughts? > > > > Either way, there needs to be a decision by the middle of next week. > > Well, we got GCC 3.0 ABI support off the New features list. ObjC/C++ > would push us back a long ways, and I don't remember what the > complications with readline4.2 were. None, I just didn't get a chance to do the import. Elena > > I wouldn't be averse to a quick 5.2 release from the trunk, otherwise. > There's a few things it would be nice to have done first - I have more > C++ fixes, and the profiling patch has not AFAICR been committed yet. > But there should be time. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer