From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27461 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2002 14:05:51 -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 27372 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2002 14:05:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2002 14:05:45 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA18094; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 08:05:43 -0600 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:05:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200201151405.IAA18094@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.2 or GDB 5.1.1? Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Just a postscript to this. Because the FSF would like to be able to > spin out a manual based on a current release but are currently fixing > things I'll very likely end up spinning out a 5.1.1 or 5.1.0.2 (ulgh) > anyway. The latter is far far easier. Another constraint: 5.1.0.2 would be unable to debug -gdwarf-2 code with gcc-HEAD, which is going to become gcc 3.1 eventually. (I'm bummed because my overnight test run got stuck in the configuration of gdb 5.1, gcc HEAD, -gdwarf-2, so I had to kludge around that and start the test script again). Michael C