Re: eCos GNU tools 4.6.2-20120125 ready for testing

[Sergei Gavrikov <sergei.gavrikov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> > On 04/03/2012 19:37, John Dallaway wrote:
> > > Hi Alex
> > >
> > > Alex Schuilenburg wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > >> There is only one issue uncovered so far, and that is the
> > >> backtrace of gdb 7.3 is unreliable.  It occasionally can end up
> > >> in an infinite loop, while our own 7.2 gdb for eCosPro works just
> > >> fine in exactly the same tests (i.e. built with gcc 4.6.2).
> > >> However, I guess users could add a "set backtracelimit=100" and
> > >> that should catch this issue.
> > > That is useful info, thank you. Could you provide examples of the
> > > infinite backtrace please? We need to understand which of the
> > > backtrace backstops is missing or ineffective.
> > 
> > kexcept1 and except1 backtrace fail in every perm with 7.3 gdb.
> 
> I confirm it (I got the same for ARM7 target), it seems to me this is
> old story http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000699
> 
> But, if GDB 7.2 (I hope it was not patched a lot :-) manages that
> properly, I would stick on GDB 7.2 (I will test it).

I could not manage `bt' issue with GDB 7.2(a), it seems you have more
clever fixes for arm-tdep.{c,h} for 7.2 than there are ones in GDB 7.3
main-stream source.  So, I came back to GDB 7.3.1.

Sergei