From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-8544-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13880 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 17:34:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 13873 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 17:34:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc51.attbi.com) (204.127.198.38)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 17:34:45 -0000
Received: from ocean.lucon.org ([12.234.143.38]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020418173445.IYCK1143.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@ocean.lucon.org>
          for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:34:45 +0000
Received: by ocean.lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id D135D125C2; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:34:00 -0000
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb 5.2 removes the conditional breakpoints
Message-ID: <20020418103444.A21869@lucon.org>
References: <OFA96DE967.33896962-ONC2256B9F.0020EB68@telaviv.ibm.com> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020418140052.5861A-100000@is> <20020418093059.A20868@lucon.org> <20020418132323.A25488@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20020418132323.A25488@nevyn.them.org>; from drow@mvista.com on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:23:24PM -0400
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 09:30:59AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 02:08:41PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Michael Veksler wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Your argument that "5,2 has been around for ~4
> > > > years" does not hold water, how many people have been using 5.2 ?
> > > 
> > > You misunderstood: Andrew said that between 4.17 and 5.2, all versions of 
> > > GDB had this bug.  Those versions in between are in use for 4 years, not 
> > > version 5.2 (which wasn't released yet).
> > > 
> > 
> > Between 4.17 and 5.2, 4.18 and 5.0 are basically broken for Linux. I
> > only started using 5.1 a few months ago. For me, this regression is
> > relatively new to my gdb.
> 
> That's just untrue.  I used both 4.18 and 5.0 extensively on GNU/Linux
> systems, and they worked quite well.
> 

Are you using linuxthreads and hardware watchpoints? Here is one thread
on this:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-09/msg00138.html


H.J.