Re: gdb 5.2 removes the conditional breakpoints

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:34:44AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> 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

No.  That is not such a critical feature that I would call it
"basically broken", and more was fixed by 5.0 that it was worth
upgrading.

That message is about a regression in 5.1 from 4.18, which completely
conflicts with what you said above.  It was fixed for 5.2, as far as I
know.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer