Re: C++ FAIL counts and the effect of demangler fix

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>]

> From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
> Date: 15 Feb 2001 13:54:02 -0800
> 
> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
> >	o	I don't want GDB's release schedule in
> >		someway directly tided to GCC's release
> >		schedule.
> 
> I think that is unavoidable, given that Gcc 3 has a new and
> incompatible C++ ABI.  It is Bad if the current release of Gdb cannot
> debug code produced from the current release of Gcc.  Therefore, Gdb
> 5.1 should be released before or at the same time as Gcc 3.0 is
> released, and it needs to have at least tolerable support for the new
> C++ ABI.
> 
> Otherwise, we may have to live with the situation (and I don't
> actually know what the situation is), but make no mistake: This is
> a critical issue for many people, Red Hat included.  (OS distributors
> may have a hard time switching to Gcc 3.0 if there are critical Gdb
> regressions.)

If there are important reasons why the next release of GDB should
support the new C++ ABI, then perhaps the GCC team should help Daniel
and others work on the GDB side of this support.  Or maybe you should
consider delaying the release of GCC 3.0 in the same manner as you are
suggesting that GDB will delay its release.

This is not an issue with GDB alone.  The change of the ABI was in
GCC, so I think the GCC team should share the responsibility for
making GDB support it.