From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30154 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2010 04:17:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 30143 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2010 04:17:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 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; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:17:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11492BABC3; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:17:12 -0500 (EST) 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 8U1zjEVrXcgB; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0672BABE4; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55836F59A0; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:16:44 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Chris Sutcliffe Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdb-7.1] 10 days to branching... Message-ID: <20100202041644.GN8831@adacore.com> References: <20100201081928.GA9204@adacore.com> <2bf229d31002010809o2cb8760du9a52c9b996e91c56@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2bf229d31002010809o2cb8760du9a52c9b996e91c56@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > I've noticed an issue with MinGW hosted GDB using the current CVS head > (I tested with a 20100130 snapshot as well) compared to the behaviour > I see with 7.0.1. Is this expected? I don't know - I had never heard of anyone doing this kind of build before: From what I can tell, you are building a MinGW debugger using a cygwin compiler. If no one answered, it's probably because no one has anything to say (including: "that ought to work"). Have you tried using a MinGW compiler instead? -- Joel