From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2586 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2009 13:03:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2498 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2009 13:03:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:03:13 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DDCB0060; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n95D3AwK025695; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:03:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:03:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , Paul Pluzhnikov , Anirban Sinha , gdb@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: FW: gdb seems to be broken on darwin 10.5.8 and later Message-ID: <20091005130310.GA25614@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <8ac60eac0909302034s3f67ed8fxc84fa5544740dd21@mail.gmail.com> <20091002015530.GB29817@bromo.med.uc.edu> <8ac60eac0910011913v762a312eh7edb63c9e3730586@mail.gmail.com> <20091002153739.GN6532@adacore.com> <20091005025700.GA5715@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091005025700.GA5715@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00079.txt.bz2 On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 07:57:00PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > >> 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 Joel, I ran the make check on gdb cvs last night (without an ada compiler installed) and the test results seemed reasonable. Does gdb have anything like the contrib/test_summary script from gcc so that a shorter summary can be generated for the gdb-testers mailing list? I thought I would post some full test results in case any particular failures jumped out as being low hanging fruit for fixing. Jack