From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1754 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2004 12:00:47 -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 1747 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2004 12:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO burundai.radix50.net) (82.83.204.60) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2004 12:00:46 -0000 Received: from burundai.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burundai.radix50.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id i78C3TYG000374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:03:29 +0200 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by burundai.radix50.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id i78C3T4I000373 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:03:29 +0200 Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:00:00 -0000 From: Baurjan Ismagulov To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6.2.1? Message-ID: <20040808120328.GA30415@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <41128FD4.5020702@gnu.org> <20040805204835.GI1192@gnat.com> <41139F3F.7040508@gnu.org> <20040806161616.GO1192@gnat.com> <41151A34.1000704@gnu.org> <41152002.9020708@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41152002.9020708@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 Hello, On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 02:31:30PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I'll commit the ``absolute source path'' patch then 6.2.1 is good to go > >(well depending on how Eli and Mark resolve the i386 change). > > I'm going to back out of my decision here :-( > > I've looked over the patch and am really reluctant to back-port it > without a testcase illustrating what it fixed. I've tried the test as given in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00463.html , it doesn't work with 6.2 and does work with 6.2 + patch. As for testsuite entry, it is on my TODO list for a long time. I'll try to do it these weeks. > While yes a bug, its not > like the absolute shocker MIPS crash in 6.2. It's also long standing. > I think for this we should instead accelerate 6.3 a little and pull it > into the Oct/Nov timeframe. No problem with me. With kind regards, Baurjan.