From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25538 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2003 15:50:07 -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 25530 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2003 15:50:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2003 15:50:06 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h77FnwLa008216; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:49:58 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h77FnwHK029711; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:49:58 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h77FnwWV029710; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:49:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:50:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200308071549.h77FnwWV029710@duracef.shout.net> To: bob@brasko.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: cvs update X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 > When doing a 'cvs update' do I have to do it from the top level? > or can I do it from src/gdb? See Daniel's message. > I don't know if gdb depends on binutils, ... for running on the host. Basically, no. You can just use binutils 2.14 and not update your binutils until 2.14.1 comes out, and gdb will work fine, even if you use a cvs version of gdb and update it every day. Here's what I do. I regularly test the cross product of these choices: gdb: 5.3, gdb_6_0-branch, HEAD gcc: 2.95.3, vendor, 3.3, gcc-3_3-branch, HEAD binutils: vendor, 2.14, binutils-2_14-branch, HEAD (Yes, it's a lot of testing). If there is a difference between different versions of binutils, I'll see it and report it. But starting with binutils 2.13.2.1, basically all versions of binutils work the same almost all the time, so you can just settle with one and forget about it. My old vendor binutils doesn't support thread local storage but that is the only difference I've seen. Michael C