From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 782 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 03:32:49 -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 775 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 03:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 03:32:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A1HRQ-00022m-8h; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:32:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Daniel Berlin Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3 Message-ID: <20030922033248.GA7789@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Berlin , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200309192229.h8JMT9q0021832@duracef.shout.net> <20030919235818.GC17343@redhat.com> <20030920043932.GA4742@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:05:05PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > > >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual, > > > >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch. > > > >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches > > > >archive, but that takes just a few seconds. > > > > > > Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching > > > to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better. > > > > I'd say, absolutely. I've been meaning to ask Daniel B. about setting > > one up for binutils too. > > binutils is easier than gdb, because binutils has nothing right now. > Thus, there's nothing to convert :P. > > GDB has GNATS, and in order to keep the bug numbers the same, we'd have > to set up a new install of bugzilla (since bugzilla bug ids are > "globally" unique to a given bugzilla instance, rather than unique to a > given product). Yeah, at this point I guess we'd prefer to hold on to the PR ids. We've documented some of them... > Does GDB have any different gnats fields than gcc's gnats used to? > > If not, i can run the conversion script on the database, import the data > into my test database on dberlin.org, and you guys could see what the > converted db looks like (though i don't have inbound email handling set up > on my machine). I don't think it does. Different things in the category lists et cetera, of course. But that's it. Right now it's: Reporter, CC, Number, Category, Synopsis, Confidential, Severity, Priority, Responsible, State, Class, Submitter-Id, Arrival-Date, Closed-Date, Last-Modified, Originator, Release, Organization, Environment, Description, File Attachments, How-To-Repeat, Fix, Release-Note, Unformatted, and the Audit Trail. Usual caveats about how much some of those are worth. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer