From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28518 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2003 01:13:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28470 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2003 01:13:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2003 01:13:21 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307052B89; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F611DAE.5020708@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 01:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ezannoni@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: 6.0 NEWS; tls tests on gdb-6? References: <200309112358.h8BNwjjZ010615@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 > eza> What's the thought about putting the tls tests into the gdb-6 branch? > eza> yes/no/indifferent? > > I would rather not, on the principle of "don't shake the jello" > > But I guess it really depends on whether TLS support is an advertised > feature of gdb 6.0. I am hoping that it's not. BTW, there are a few 6.0 features that need to be advertized: - frame stuff - file i/o stuff - C++ improvements? - expression evaluation - so .... tls? Andrew