From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10804 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2010 07:29:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10787 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2010 07:29:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (HELO mout0.freenet.de) (195.4.92.90) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:29:18 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.27] (helo=17.mx.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1NjSjD-00050E-Df; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:29:15 +0100 Received: from hsi-kbw-078-043-063-233.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([78.43.63.233]:62849 helo=[192.168.1.104]) by 17.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.72 #1) id 1NjSjD-0005Sb-8b; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:29:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4B823249.7020806@rtems.org> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:29:00 -0000 From: Ralf Corsepius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.0.90 available for testing References: <20100219012023.GG9752@adacore.com> <4B7EBB95.1060909@rtems.org> <20100219163315.GE2793@adacore.com> <4B7EBFDD.2090003@rtems.org> <20100219165223.GF2793@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100219165223.GF2793@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 On 02/19/2010 05:52 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 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. Well, in my case, it's only the bfin which exposes this behavior. IIRC, in case of bfin-* targets, gdb < 7's configure-scripts refused to buildbfd, opcodes or some other binutils subdirectory, gdb inherits from binutils. AFAIS, gdb >= 7.0 has inherited bfd etc. from a version of binutils which has been added the bfin* targets. I.e. now, binutils' more restrictive checks don't trigger anymore. >> 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. > Well, it's certainly not a major issue, nevertheless it's a nuissance responsible for nasty surprises and thus should be addressed. Ralf