Re: my 6.0 todo list

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes:
 > On my list:
 > 
 >   gdb backtrace bugs
 >     http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1250
 >     http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1253
 >     http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1255
 > 
 >   dejagnu build issue
 >     http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/708
 > 
 >   red hat linux 9
 >     elena z how is it going?
 > 

I didn't have a chance to continue on this, sorry.

It occured to me that there is a potential train about to hit us,
which is the tree-ssa gcc work. Apparently it is going to produce
really really heavily optimized code, and I am worried abuot how well
gdb will cope for this.

I'd like to add this to the list of gcc's we test. I hope I'll get a
chance to do this soon. There is a public branch that is called
tree-ssa-20020619-branch.

elena


 > Off the top of my head, my test bed isn't producing any regressions
 > besides the backtrace bugs.  But I won't swear that it is clean until
 > I get out the microscope though.
 > 
 > >From my last "5.3 versus HEAD" report,
 > 
 >   MI issues
 >     how is MI these days?
 > 
 >   x86-64 regressions
 >     how is it these days?
 > 
 >   multi-register variables
 >     fixed!
 > 
 >   java regression
 >     fixed!
 > 
 >   gcc HEAD -gstabs+
 >     The nastiest pr, gcc/10055, got fixed in gcc.
 > 
 >     There are other regressions with gcc HEAD with both dwarf-2 and
 >     stabs+ but this does not stop a gdb release.
 > 
 > I will put out a "5.3 versus gdb_6_0-branch" report next week.
 > I've been hoping for some of the backtrace bugs to get fixed first.
 > 
 > Michael C