Re: GDB 6.1 branch end jan?

[mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)]

Andrew C writes:

	~branch 2004-01-31
	~release 2004-03-15

I'm comfortable with 6 weeks for branch-to-release.

I think 2004-01-31 is okay, depending on whether people spend time
fixing high-priority bugs or not.  If they don't fix the bugs before the
branch then we will have to fix them on both branch and HEAD and that's
just more work.  If we have known bugs, and you decide we have to fix
them, then I'd rather branch later and release earlier.

bugs with priority=high (4):

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1417
  crash when printing variables

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1405
  regression: print pEe->vf(), virtual baseclass both, g++ 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1398
  Path handling bug which makes GDB unable to stop at breakpoints

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/378
  ``GNU/Linux" ``Linux kernel"

bugs with severity=critical marked "regression" (1):

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1501
  [regression] src-release broken, uses obsolete sun4 configuration

There are 47 total severity=critical bugs.

This bug deserves high priority:

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1470
  ELF_LINK_POINTER_EQUALITY_NEEDED breaks shlib-call.exp

    binutils HEAD has a new PLT optimization which gdb does not handle.
    I say it's a problem in binutils but Jakub J says it's a problem in gdb.

Coverage with gcc HEAD -gstabs+ has not been available since the ABI
upgrade.  (That's why I haven't published a report since before the
ABI change.  I have to fix some more gdb.cp/*.exp files, and I've been
waiting a week for any more fallout from my last rewrite).  I'd like
to have some more visibility from this before branch.

If I've been doing the sunday project perfectly, then every test result
regression from gdb 6.0 has already turned into a priority=high bug with
"regression" in the name.  But I may have missed something.  So there
might be about 1 more bug in there when I examine the "compare by gdb"
tables.  I estimate 0.1 to 0.3 bugs.  :)

hppa*-hp-hpux* support is better than 6.0 (it would be hard to be worse
than "does not build"), but it's probably worse than the last good gdb
version, whatever that was.  It passes the "break main" test, at least
when gdb itself is built with gcc.

Michael C