From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5877 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 21:06:01 -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 5868 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 21:06:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 21:06:00 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A6cYJ-0003Dp-E6 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:05:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB schedule. Message-ID: <20031006210559.GA12369@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200310061954.h96JsfCP008508@duracef.shout.net> <3F81D598.4070601@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F81D598.4070601@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 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