* Re: GDB schedule.
@ 2003-10-06 19:59 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-10-06 20:50 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2003-10-06 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ac131313, gdb
My comments:
I will keep testing and reporting on the branch while we come
to a decision.
gdb HEAD has some regressions versus gdb 6.0, especially with C++.
In the near future, I'm going to do a "HEAD versus 6.0" report so that
people can work on them.
I think the regression bugs in gdb HEAD are small enough that we can fix
them all in time to cut a branch in January, but that is just informal.
We do have to fix these bugs anyways.
I'm not qualified to say whether there are any big projects in progress
that won't finish by January.
I would rather skip gdb 6.0.1 unless something happens in the field
that mandates it. Less work on the branch => more resources for HEAD.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB schedule.
2003-10-06 19:59 GDB schedule Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2003-10-06 20:50 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-06 21:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-10-06 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: gdb
> I would rather skip gdb 6.0.1 unless something happens in the field
> that mandates it. Less work on the branch => more resources for HEAD.
Apparently location expressions don't work (I'm wondering why the test
results didn't identify this, sigh).
The fix is small so its the sort of thing that can be cheaply pushed
into 6.0.1.
However, yes, given the choice, I'd also also prefer to not do a 6.0.1.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB schedule.
2003-10-06 20:50 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2003-10-06 21:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-10-06 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 04:50:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >I would rather skip gdb 6.0.1 unless something happens in the field
> >that mandates it. Less work on the branch => more resources for HEAD.
>
> Apparently location expressions don't work (I'm wondering why the test
> results didn't identify this, sigh).
>
> The fix is small so its the sort of thing that can be cheaply pushed
> into 6.0.1.
>
> However, yes, given the choice, I'd also also prefer to not do a 6.0.1.
Ditto. Location expressions do work. Location expressions describing
function parameters do not work; GCC doesn't generate them. Yet.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* GDB schedule.
@ 2003-10-06 18:37 Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-10-06 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
While it suggests a GDB 6.0.1 in November, it might be better to skip to
6.1 and do that sooner. This is because it might be easier to do a new
branch than try to back port all the frame code to the old branch.
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/schedule/
CURRENT (6.0) NEXT (6.1))
Branch: Sat June 21 (2003-06-21) January (2004-01)
Release: Mon October 6 (2003-10-06) Febuary (2004-03)
reSpin: Mon November 3 (2003-11-03) March (2004-01)
comments,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-10-06 21:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-06 19:59 GDB schedule Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-10-06 20:50 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-10-06 21:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-10-06 18:37 Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).