Re: debugging gcc 3.x c++

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-02-13T00:53:30Z

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