From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: per@bothner.com Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: C++ FAIL counts and the effect of demangler fix Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:35:00 -0000 Message-id: <200102160735.CAA01234@indy.delorie.com> References: <200102141649.IAA28922@bosch.cygnus.com> <3A8C1E5E.F4A2C5E2@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00203.html > From: Per Bothner > Date: 15 Feb 2001 13:54:02 -0800 > > Andrew Cagney 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.