From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14561 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 00:53:30 -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 14467 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 00:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 00:53:29 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16anfm-00020D-00; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:53:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Dan Conti Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: debugging gcc 3.x c++ Message-ID: <20020212195322.A7646@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Dan Conti , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:02:55PM -0800, Dan Conti wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:drow@mvista.com] > > Subject: Re: debugging gcc 3.x c++ > > > > [snip] > > > > This is fixed in GDB CVS. It has been for a bit over a month now. > > Could you give it a try? > > > > I see on the PR trail that I told you this at the time. The > > misunderstanding may come from 5.1.1 being released afterwards; that > > does NOT contain the fix. 5.2 will. > > Yes, i remember you telling me that at the time. I tried out a snap from > 01/22/02 which seemed to fix it but showed other issues on my target. > When 5.1.1 came out, i figured that the existing bugfixes would be > incorporated into that release, and when i ran it initially it didn't > seem to exhibit this problem (although that could easily be attributed > to different test code). Out of curiosity, why wasn't this incorporated > into the 5.1.1 release? Because the 5.1.1 release was a maintenance release, not off the development branch. It mostly incorporated copyright and legal fixes, and one DWARF-2 feature. What other issues? > In any case, when is gdb 5.2 scheduled to be released? If it was just > me, i'd use a cvs snapshot, but i have to set this up for a group of > people and i'd rather use something more stable. Alternatively, would it > be possible for me to patch my 5.1.1 with the appropriate fixes? In two months, I believe. It'd be possible, but quite a lot of work. > > Actually, it's for GNATS use only. GNATS messages get copied there. > > Then perhaps the web page should be updated to mention that it's for > GNATS use only? The description indicates that it can be used for > discussing bugs submitted to the database, so one would think that > discussion this bug (which was submitted to the database) should happen > on that list. Yes, probably. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer