From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24919 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2002 13:57:53 -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 24834 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2002 13:57:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2002 13:57:40 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA17255; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 07:57:32 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 05:57:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200201151357.HAA17255@duracef.shout.net> To: eliz@is.elta.co.il Subject: Re: GDB C++ support Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, sassi@uni.de X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 Sheesh, Eli. Guido asked: gs> So my question would be, how far the work on support for C++ and gcc 3.x gs> went as of now, and if one could expect some solution to this problem in the gs> near future? gs> gs> It just confuses me, that the development of gcc and gdb seems so gs> asynchronous, and a compiler suite, as elegant as it may be, withers away if gs> it lacks usable debugging support. And that's what I answered, especially the second part. eli> Do you (or someone else) happen to know whether v5.1 solves some or eli> all of the specific problems Guido described in his message? If not, eli> he has no reason to try GDB 5.1, does he? Well, gdb 5.0 was released more than a year before gcc 3.0, and gdb 5.1 was released more than 5 months after gcc 3.0. That's a good reason to expect that gdb 5.1 will work a lot better than gdb 5.0 when the target program is compiled with gcc 3.0.3. I don't have gcc 3.0.3 installed yet (I wish I did). I don't have djgpp 2.03 installed (I probably never will). And I don't have time to chase after user bug reports with incomplete source code and gdb 5.0. Michael C