[ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

Hello,

A quick message to announce that the GDB 7.0 branch has just been created.

The prerelease snapshots will be available at:

    ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb.tar.bz2

The sources are also accessible via CVS:

    cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/src co -r gdb_7_0-branch gdb

This announcement has also been posted on the GDB web site at:

    http://www.sourceware.org/gdb/

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> A quick message to announce that the GDB 7.0 branch has just been
Joel> created.

Thank you very much for doing all this.

Tom

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Hui Zhu]

Thanks a lot.

Hui

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 06:17, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A quick message to announce that the GDB 7.0 branch has just been created.
>
> The prerelease snapshots will be available at:
>
>    ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb.tar.bz2
>
> The sources are also accessible via CVS:
>
>    cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/src co -r gdb_7_0-branch gdb
>
> This announcement has also been posted on the GDB web site at:
>
>    http://www.sourceware.org/gdb/
>
> --
> Joel
>

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:17:10PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> A quick message to announce that the GDB 7.0 branch has just been created.
> 
> The prerelease snapshots will be available at:
> 
>     ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb.tar.bz2
> 
> The sources are also accessible via CVS:
> 
>     cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/src co -r gdb_7_0-branch gdb
> 
> This announcement has also been posted on the GDB web site at:
> 
>     http://www.sourceware.org/gdb/
> 
> -- 
> Joel

   What exactly is that status of darwin support? I noticed that the behavior
of gdb trunk on x86_64-apple-darwin10 has changed. Now I find that when built
with...

./src/configure --disable-werror --build=x86_64-apple-darwin10 --target=x86_64-apple-darwin10 --target=x86_64-apple-darwin10 --prefix=/Users/howarth/gdb_cvs/dist

the resulting gdb produces the output...

[Macintosh-2:~] howarth% gcc-4.2 -O0 -g -c himenoBMTxpa.c
[Macintosh-2:~] howarth% gcc-4.2 -O0 -g -o ./a.out himenoBMTxpa.o
[Macintosh-2:~] howarth% /Users/howarth/gdb_cvs/dist/bin/gdb ./a.out
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.0.50.20090920-cvs
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-apple-darwin10".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
Reading symbols from /Users/howarth/a.out...
warning: dsym file UUID doesn't match the one in /Users/howarth/a.out

warning: section __DATA.__common not found in /Users/howarth/himenoBMTxpa.o
(no debugging symbols found)...done.
(gdb) 

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:

>   What exactly is that status of darwin support?

Not working.

You could try this patch, and tell us whether the result works
satisfactorily for you:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00430.html

Cheers,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

> >   What exactly is that status of darwin support?
> Not working.
> 
> You could try this patch, and tell us whether the result works
> satisfactorily for you:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00430.html

This patch (which we included in the AdaCore sources - thank you!)
should only get rid of some complaint messages, which are not emitted
by default.

While we discussed the gdb-7.0 release, I did try GDB on Darwin, and
it seemed to be working at least OK. I had to change the gid and make
it setgid procmod, I think, but it otherwised worked ok (and the error
message was different from that Jack is getting).

I don't know what could be wrong. If he turns "set complaint 50" and
sees the complaints about overlapping sections, then we know that
the debug object files are being read for their debug info.  Otherwise,
something's wrong there.

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

>> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00430.html
>
> This patch (which we included in the AdaCore sources - thank you!)
> should only get rid of some complaint messages, which are not emitted
> by default.

I am not sure what you mean.

The patch (I believe) actually solves a problem, not just suppresses
complaints: without it find_pc_section may find a "random" .text
section from foo.o, and things go downhill from there. With the patch,
foo.o is not inserted into the section map, so find_pc_section returns
correct .text section (from a.exe or foo.dylib), and everything else
works.

Cheers,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

> The patch (I believe) actually solves a problem, not just suppresses
> complaints: without it find_pc_section may find a "random" .text
> section from foo.o, and things go downhill from there. With the patch,
> foo.o is not inserted into the section map, so find_pc_section returns
> correct .text section (from a.exe or foo.dylib), and everything else
> works.

My understand was that the sections from the .o objfiles was already
filtered out from the section map (after emitting the complaint).
So the debugger should still find the correct section.

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

> My understand was that the sections from the .o objfiles was already
> filtered out from the section map (after emitting the complaint).

Ah, I see.  It's true that overlapping sections are already filtered
out, but it is not guaranteed which ones, and in fact the .text from
a.exe is more likely to be discarded then the .text from (some) foo.o,
because the latter will generally have lower section start.

> So the debugger should still find the correct section.

I don't believe that's true for committed source.

Cheers,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

> Ah, I see.  It's true that overlapping sections are already filtered
> out, but it is not guaranteed which ones, and in fact the .text from
> a.exe is more likely to be discarded then the .text from (some) foo.o,
> because the latter will generally have lower section start.

Hmmm, I knew that it was not guaranteed that the .o sections would
be discarded, but I was hoping that it just happened to be the case.
ISTR that this was the case when I looked at the warnings that were
printed. I assumed that, after relocation, the .text section of the
.o files should always be equal or higher than the .text section of
the executable...

> Presumably you did a fair amount of testing on that.
> 
> If so, should I commit that patch on the 7.0 branch (and perhaps on
> the trunk) as a temporary workaround, until Tristan comes up with a
> better fix?

That's what I suggested we do a few days ago, before we cut the branch.
But I haven't had a chance to test this much. Right now, AdaCore has
a separate branch for x86-darwin GDB, that we used to develop the port.
We're trying to move to gdb-7.0, but we haven't had time to complete
the integration and until then, testing is difficult. I definitely
plan on completing this part before 7.0 is out, however.

In the meantime, I'll see if I can reproduce Jack's issue with the
latest sources.

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:11:54AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> 
> That's what I suggested we do a few days ago, before we cut the branch.
> But I haven't had a chance to test this much. Right now, AdaCore has
> a separate branch for x86-darwin GDB, that we used to develop the port.
> We're trying to move to gdb-7.0, but we haven't had time to complete
> the integration and until then, testing is difficult. I definitely
> plan on completing this part before 7.0 is out, however.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll see if I can reproduce Jack's issue with the
> latest sources.
> 
> -- 
> Joel

Just to be clear, if I add...

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00430.htm

to gdb cvs on x86_64-apple-darwin, I still see the warnings...

GNU gdb (GDB) 7.0.50.20090920-cvs
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "x86_64-apple-darwin10".
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
Reading symbols from /Users/howarth/a.out...
warning: dsym file UUID doesn't match the one in /Users/howarth/a.out

warning: section __DATA.__common not found in /Users/howarth/himenoBMTxpa.o
(no debugging symbols found)...done.

but I also see...

(gdb) break 4
Breakpoint 1 at 0x10000154c: file himenoBMTxpa.c, line 4.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /Users/howarth/a.out 
Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 154: (os/kern) failure (0x5).
 (please check gdb is setgid procmod)
(gdb) 

So it seems like breakpoints can be set but their is a setgid problem.
        Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

Jack,

Are you confirming that Paul's patch makes a difference?

> (gdb) r
> Starting program: /Users/howarth/a.out 
> Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 154: (os/kern) failure (0x5).
>  (please check gdb is setgid procmod)
> (gdb) 
> 
> So it seems like breakpoints can be set but their is a setgid problem.

Right, it must be setgit procmod. Nice to see that GDB prints this
suggestion. Anyway, do:

    % sudo chgrp procmod gdb
    % sudo chmod g+s gdb

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:

> (gdb) r
> Starting program: /Users/howarth/a.out
> Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 154: (os/kern) failure (0x5).
>  (please check gdb is setgid procmod)
> (gdb)
>
> So it seems like breakpoints can be set but their is a setgid problem.

This is not really related to GDB. Explanation (at least as far as I
understand what's happening):
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-08/msg00085.html

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

>    % sudo chgrp procmod gdb
>    % sudo chmod g+s gdb

That appears to no longer be sufficient on Mac OS X 10.5.8 (at least
it doesn't work for me):

$ ls -l gdb/gdb
-rwxrwsr-x  1 ppluzhnikov  procmod  4416668 Sep 20 10:20 gdb/gdb
$ gdb/gdb ./t
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.0.50.20090920-cvs
...
Reading symbols from /Users/ppluzhnikov/gdb-cvs/build/t...(no
debugging symbols found)...done.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /Users/ppluzhnikov/gdb-cvs/build/t
Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 39624: (os/kern) failure (0x5).
 (please check gdb is setgid procmod)
(gdb) q


-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:37:07AM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> 
> This is not really related to GDB. Explanation (at least as far as I
> understand what's happening):
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-08/msg00085.html
> 
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> 
> >    % sudo chgrp procmod gdb
> >    % sudo chmod g+s gdb
> 
> That appears to no longer be sufficient on Mac OS X 10.5.8 (at least
> it doesn't work for me):
> 
> $ ls -l gdb/gdb
> -rwxrwsr-x  1 ppluzhnikov  procmod  4416668 Sep 20 10:20 gdb/gdb
> $ gdb/gdb ./t
> GNU gdb (GDB) 7.0.50.20090920-cvs
> ...
> Reading symbols from /Users/ppluzhnikov/gdb-cvs/build/t...(no
> debugging symbols found)...done.
> (gdb) r
> Starting program: /Users/ppluzhnikov/gdb-cvs/build/t
> Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 39624: (os/kern) failure (0x5).
>  (please check gdb is setgid procmod)
> (gdb) q
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Pluzhnikov

I suspect if someone posts to llvm-dev (where a lot of the Apple dev tool
folks hang out) we might get a quick answer.
         Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:

>> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-08/msg00085.html

> I suspect if someone posts to llvm-dev (where a lot of the Apple dev tool
> folks hang out) we might get a quick answer.

I see that the google books link in the message above doesn't work
anymore (it gets you the right book, but not the answer) :-(

The explanation I was linking to basically said that in order to open
debug port of another task, an executable has to either be running as
root, as a user who is in the "procmod" group, or to have been signed
with a "magic" key (presumably that's now Apple-shipped GDB works).


-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Joel Brobecker]

I think I see now why Paul was saying that it was not working while
I thought that it was definitely working.

As far as I can tell, it seems to be working fine for me, at least on
the simple program that I used, but I think that this is because I am
using darwin 9.6.  I just did a rebuild and a quick sanity check, no
issues to report except some annoying warnings that shouldn't be there:

    (gdb) run
    `a-except.o' has disappeared; keeping its symbols.
    `s-except.o' has disappeared; keeping its symbols.
    `s-traceb.o' has disappeared; keeping its symbols.

I was planning on dealing with that sometime this week, and as soon
as this is done, we should be able to have a more detailed analysis
of the status of this port. Thankfully, these warnings are harmless
and are only there because the GNAT runtime has some units compiled
with debug info.  A typical C program shouldn't trigger them.

Now, it looks like it is not working yet on darwin 10.x. From what
Paul is saying, it might just be a matter of adding oneself to the
procmod group. I don't know how to do that either, but I will ask
one of our sysadmins. If we can't make it work, we might have to
document a little more accurately the fact that the new darwin port
does not work on darwin 10.x (Snow Leopard?)

Also, about the warnings that Jack saw and started this discussion,
no clue. I am not setup to play on Darwin 10 yet, and I probably
will not have time for that before 7.0.

-- 
Joel

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 09:34:10PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> As far as I can tell, it seems to be working fine for me, at least on
> the simple program that I used, but I think that this is because I am
> using darwin 9.6.  I just did a rebuild and a quick sanity check, no
> issues to report except some annoying warnings that shouldn't be there:
> 

Joel,
   I suspect it would break if you upgraded to 10.5.8 (which would be
what 99+% of the end-users on Leopard would be running). I'll try to
get an answer on this from the compiler developers at Apple (as to
what is the correct fix). Hopefully we don't have to force users to
add themselves to groups and there is another approach.
             Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jonas Maebe]

On 21 Sep 2009, at 14:56, Jack Howarth wrote:

>   I suspect it would break if you upgraded to 10.5.8 (which would be
> what 99+% of the end-users on Leopard would be running). I'll try to
> get an answer on this from the compiler developers at Apple (as to
> what is the correct fix). Hopefully we don't have to force users to
> add themselves to groups and there is another approach.

Apple's gdb developers are usually quite responsive on Apple's xcode- 
users list: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users


Jonas

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:35:55PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> Apple's gdb developers are usually quite responsive on Apple's xcode- 
> users list: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users
>
>
> Jonas

Jonas,
   I'll wait and see what response I get from my post on llvm-dev first
(as all the heavy lifting is on llvm/clang at Apple now). Actually, I
just found out on llvm-dev last Friday that libgcc in Snow Leopard is
actually subsumed into libSystem now (and the FSF libgcc is never
actually used). Never heard that anywhere else before. Makes life 
interesting when a compiler is creating exception handling for a completely
different unwinder than the one actually used at runtime.
              Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jonas Maebe]

On 21 Sep 2009, at 15:46, Jack Howarth wrote:

>   I'll wait and see what response I get from my post on llvm-dev first
> (as all the heavy lifting is on llvm/clang at Apple now). Actually, I
> just found out on llvm-dev last Friday that libgcc in Snow Leopard is
> actually subsumed into libSystem now (and the FSF libgcc is never
> actually used). Never heard that anywhere else before.

Yes, but that reply was by the linker guy at Apple. I don't know  
whether the gdb guys (Jim Ingham, Christopher Friesen and Jason  
Molenda are the ones I know of) are also on the llvm list. At least I  
can't find any posts of either of them in my llvm-dev archive.

> Makes life
> interesting when a compiler is creating exception handling for a  
> completely
> different unwinder than the one actually used at runtime.

There are a lot of "interesting" things when you develop a compiler/ 
tool chain for Mac OS X, and more get added with every new major  
release. I know all about that...


Jonas

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jim Ingham]

Sorry, I don't watch the llvm lists.

My understanding was that the OS Security folks were not planning to  
turn off procmod in SnowLeopard.  A quick test shows the Apple gdb  
built setgid procmod but not codesigned was able to debug.  Maybe now  
you do need the plist (see point 1 below...), though?

At some point, however, the procmod access will go away - or so I was  
told...  Here is the "official" way task port access is granted on  
SnowLeopard (this is what will continue to be supported in the future):

1) In order to have task port access, the process has to request it  
using a plist baked into the binary.  If you look at Apple's gdb  
sources in the src/gdb directory, the plist is in the Info.plist file,  
and it gets added by adding a -sectcreate option to the link line in  
the Makefile.

2) Then the binary also has to be codesigned by some authority that is  
recognized by the user.  You can easily make an appropriate  
codesigning authority with the Certificate Assistant which is part of  
the KeyChain Access tool, or if the FSF already has one that you can  
use, that's even better.  I make an unvalidated one by hand for my own  
development purposes, and there's a target in the gdb Makefile:  
"codesign-gdb" that does the codesigning on the gdb binary if you need  
to see how that is done.  The annoying bit here is that you have to  
ship and install the certificate along with the binary, since the user  
has to say they trust it.

3) There's another trick to this, however, which is that even if you  
fill these requirements, the user will be asked to authenticate to use  
the debugger once per login session.  This is done by the taskgated  
daemon that "task_for_pid" calls down to, and it will put up a dialog  
box if gdb is running in a session that can connect to the Window  
Server.  That's okay for gdb running in a terminal session on your  
local machine, but doesn't work if you are ssh'ed into the machine.   
Fortunately there are API's that you can use to request this  
permission so you can query for the password in the terminal if you  
want.  There's a function "macosx_get_task_for_pid_rights" in the  
SnowLeopard sources for gdb (in macosx-nat-inferior.c) that does just  
that.

The gdb that Apple ships gets special treatment  because it is  
codesigned by the Apple codesigning authority.  I forget all the  
details, but I don't think that this treatment is available to non- 
Apple codesigned apps.

Again, I am pretty sure steps 2 & 3 are NOT necessary for SnowLeopard.

Jim


On Sep 21, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:35:55PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> Apple's gdb developers are usually quite responsive on Apple's xcode-
>> users list: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users
>>
>>
>> Jonas
>
> Jonas,
>   I'll wait and see what response I get from my post on llvm-dev first
> (as all the heavy lifting is on llvm/clang at Apple now). Actually, I
> just found out on llvm-dev last Friday that libgcc in Snow Leopard is
> actually subsumed into libSystem now (and the FSF libgcc is never
> actually used). Never heard that anywhere else before. Makes life
> interesting when a compiler is creating exception handling for a  
> completely
> different unwinder than the one actually used at runtime.
>              Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Mark Wielaard]

On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 12:18 -0700, Jim Ingham wrote:
> The gdb that Apple ships gets special treatment  because it is  
> codesigned by the Apple codesigning authority.  I forget all the  
> details, but I don't think that this treatment is available to non- 
> Apple codesigned apps.

If the gdb binary as conveyed to the user depends on being codesigned by
a particular authorization key, then that should be part of the
corresponding source code that the user receives. So then the signing
authorization keys would be available for any rebuild gdb binary that
the user creates.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jonas Maebe]

On 22 Sep 2009, at 14:58, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> If the gdb binary as conveyed to the user depends on being  
> codesigned by
> a particular authorization key, then that should be part of the
> corresponding source code that the user receives. So then the signing
> authorization keys would be available for any rebuild gdb binary that
> the user creates.

Isn't that only as of GPLv3 and later? (the whole "Installation  
Information" discussion) Apple's gdb is based on an old (GPLv2) fork.


Jonas

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Mark Wielaard]

On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 15:29 +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2009, at 14:58, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> > If the gdb binary as conveyed to the user depends on being  
> > codesigned by
> > a particular authorization key, then that should be part of the
> > corresponding source code that the user receives. So then the signing
> > authorization keys would be available for any rebuild gdb binary that
> > the user creates.
> 
> Isn't that only as of GPLv3 and later? (the whole "Installation  
> Information" discussion) Apple's gdb is based on an old (GPLv2) fork.

You would have to aks FSF legal for details of whether not offering part
of the corresponding source code is allowed under GPLv2 vs GPLv3. But it
seems obvious to me that if you cannot build a functionally equivalent
working binary from the sources as provided, then you are not in
compliance of offering the complete source code of the executable work.
So I would assume the requirement to provide it to the user is
equivalent under both versions. The GPLv3 text just makes it a bit more
explicit that this is the intent it seems.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

I don't mind if folks want to have this discussion somewhere else, but
it is off-topic for the GDB list; please don't have it here.  Thanks.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:55:57AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I don't mind if folks want to have this discussion somewhere else, but
> it is off-topic for the GDB list; please don't have it here.  Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery

Daniel,
   I assume you mean the discussion of the FSF legal issues and not
the discussion of what patches are required for gdb 7.0 to function
on MacOS X (which would be entirely relevant to the list).
                   Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:10:18PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>    I assume you mean the discussion of the FSF legal issues and not
> the discussion of what patches are required for gdb 7.0 to function
> on MacOS X (which would be entirely relevant to the list).

Yes, I mean the message I was replying to.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Mark Wielaard]

On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 13:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:10:18PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >    I assume you mean the discussion of the FSF legal issues and not
> > the discussion of what patches are required for gdb 7.0 to function
> > on MacOS X (which would be entirely relevant to the list).
> 
> Yes, I mean the message I was replying to.

Apologies, I wasn't aware this was controversial. Didn't want to offend.
I just wanted to point out that if Apple can distribute a version of gdb
that functions on MacOS X then the relevant sources, including any
authorization keys, should be available from them. So those could just
be included with gdb upstream so all users can create such binaries. If
that causes any legal uncertainty then indeed it would be better
discussed directly with FSF legal.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

Mark> Apologies, I wasn't aware this was controversial. Didn't want to
Mark> offend.

The reason not to discuss it here is not because it may be
controversial, but because nobody on this list is likely to be able to
do anything about it.

Mark> If that causes any legal uncertainty then indeed it would be
Mark> better discussed directly with FSF legal.

I think that you should go ahead and contact them.

Tom

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Jack Howarth]

Joel,
    FYI, the open source releases from Snow Leopard are already posted.
You might try looking at the sources to see if you can figure out the
'magic' they are using to avoid this problem...

http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gdb/gdb-966/

                    Jack

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

> This patch (which we included in the AdaCore sources - thank you!)

Presumably you did a fair amount of testing on that.

If so, should I commit that patch on the 7.0 branch (and perhaps on
the trunk) as a temporary workaround, until Tristan comes up with a
better fix?

Cheers,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov