From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17261 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 17:41:18 -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 17225 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 17:41:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 17:41:16 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16yFui-0006xB-00 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:41:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb 5.2 removes the conditional breakpoints Message-ID: <20020418134144.A26499@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020418093059.A20868@lucon.org> <20020418132323.A25488@nevyn.them.org> <20020418103444.A21869@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020418103444.A21869@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2 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