From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17107 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2003 15:53:41 -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 17098 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 15:53:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2003 15:53:40 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id E6004CB2F; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:53:39 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ezannoni@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: 6.0 NEWS; tls tests on gdb-6? References: <200309112358.h8BNwjjZ010615@duracef.shout.net> <3F611DAE.5020708@redhat.com> <3F6881B0.4090805@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F6881B0.4090805@redhat.com> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:45:52 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:45:52 -0400, Andrew Cagney said: >> I wouldn't advertise the C++ stuff: what's in 6.0 won't make a >> difference to users. It's not really going to make a difference >> until nested type support gets fully implemented, and that isn't >> even in the mainline yet, let alone 6.0. > Is it more robust? I don't recall changes that would make it much more robust, and a quick scan of GNATS didn't remind me of any big changes. There have been some small bug fixes, but no more than in other areas of GDB's code. Actually, the main robustness side effect of my C++ work has probably been the Java support; it might be worth saying something like A long-standing bug involving Java and dynamic libraries has been fixed. Support for Java debugging remains minimal, however. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com