From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15915 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2009 02:57:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 15906 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2009 02:57:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:57:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67992BAB36; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tPdJMKHOXFI4; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431BE2BAB25; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 22:57:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D4A3AF5906; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:57:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , Jack Howarth , Anirban Sinha , gdb@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: FW: gdb seems to be broken on darwin 10.5.8 and later Message-ID: <20091005025700.GA5715@adacore.com> References: <8ac60eac0909302034s3f67ed8fxc84fa5544740dd21@mail.gmail.com> <20091002015530.GB29817@bromo.med.uc.edu> <8ac60eac0910011913v762a312eh7edb63c9e3730586@mail.gmail.com> <20091002153739.GN6532@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 > >> I am not sure how Joel wants to handle this WRT the 7.0 branch; none > >> of the other maintainers chimed in :-( > > Joel> Did Jack confirm that it does not work without applying your patch? > > I read the referenced email. If the only issue with the patch is that > it is not the best possible way to fix the problem, then I think it > might as well go in. I say that because I think it generally preferable > to commit a functioning patch rather than wait for a more ideal patch. Jack came back to me a couple of days ago, and confirmed that the debugger apperas to work even without the patch. We can try to do without, at least until we confirm that it really does help. -- Joel