Re: macros/726: Internal GDB errors with current GDB snapshots and -gdwarf2-3

Daniel Berlin
2003-09-22T03:05:06Z

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 07:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:29:09PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > >I think it's good to send the patch to gdb-patches as usual,
> > >and then mail to gdb-gnats with a URL that points to the patch.
> > >That means you have to for the patch to show up in the gdb-patches
> > >archive, but that takes just a few seconds.
> >
> > Just as an aside, I'm wondering if it is time to consider switching
> > to bugzilla. I think bugzilla handles this issue a little better.
>
> I'd say, absolutely. I've been meaning to ask Daniel B. about setting
> one up for binutils too.

binutils is easier than gdb, because binutils has nothing right now.
Thus, there's nothing to convert :P.

GDB has GNATS, and in order to keep the bug numbers the same, we'd have
to set up a new install of bugzilla (since bugzilla bug ids are
"globally" unique to a given bugzilla instance, rather than unique to a
given product).

Does GDB have any different gnats fields than gcc's gnats used to?

If not, i can run the conversion script on the database, import the data
into my test database on dberlin.org, and you guys could see what the
converted db looks like (though i don't have inbound email handling set up
on my machine).
--Dan