From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2495 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 16:52:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 2485 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2010 16:52:29 -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; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:52:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1B92BAC31; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:52:24 -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 Yy497vbB38Gi; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1675E2BAC2B; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B051F5896; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ralf Corsepius Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.0.90 available for testing Message-ID: <20100219165223.GF2793@adacore.com> References: <20100219012023.GG9752@adacore.com> <4B7EBB95.1060909@rtems.org> <20100219163315.GE2793@adacore.com> <4B7EBFDD.2090003@rtems.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7EBFDD.2090003@rtems.org> 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/msg00143.txt.bz2 > I guessed as much - binutils and gcc are more restrictive, ... and > unless I am in error, gdb once also was :( I don't remember that it was, but I might be wrong. GDB is unfortunately one of these projects where a lot of knowledge is undocumented. We are trying to be better, by documenting any convention and decision that we make, but it's still far from perfect. > Note: It did not fail at build-time - Building went absolutely > smoothless -- gdb crashed at run-time! Right - I meant run-time, not build-time. I don't feel like this is a real problem, but others might disagree. -- Joel