GDB 5.0.1?

GDB 5.0.1?

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
(with the NEWS file tweeked).

Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
effort into the trunk and the next major release.

Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
the head and then close the branch?

	Andrew

Re: GDB 5.0.1?

[Mark Kettenis]

   Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:45:40 +1000
   From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>

   Hello,

   So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
   with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
   (with the NEWS file tweeked).

   Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
   effort into the trunk and the next major release.

   Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
   the head and then close the branch?

IMHO, releasing 5.0.1 is only worth the trouble if it fixes the really
annoying problem with rerunning programs with breakpoints in shared libs:

   http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-05/msg00230.html

This patch is kind of a stopgap, but I've failed to come up with
something better, and no-one else seems to be interested in solving
this :-(.

Mark

Re: GDB 5.0.1?

[Andrew Cagney]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
> with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
> (with the NEWS file tweeked).
> 
> Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
> effort into the trunk and the next major release.
> 
> Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
> the head and then close the branch?

I've only seen two responses to this and both were ``don't worry''. 
Unless there are good reasons I'm going to declare the 5.0 branch closed
(which actually means nothing :-).

	Andrew

Re: GDB 5.0.1?

[Michael Peck]

Is the Solaris 8 x86 problem fixed?  When you configure it, configure
incorrectly determines that I have no curses.h.  This causes mucho
compilation errors later on.

Simply editing the config.h to define CURSES_H fixes the problem, and then
the build works fine.

The status for this problem:

Solaris 8 x86 (PIII-560)
gcc 2.95.2

I had the same problem with several of the snapshots shortly before 5.0
became official, and 5.0 has the same problem.

I sent some mail in about it long ago, and never saw a reply.

I haven't had time to figure it out myself, especially since I get all
confused trying to figure out what configure does, I was happy to find the
workaround.

Mike

Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
> > with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
> > (with the NEWS file tweeked).
> >
> > Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
> > effort into the trunk and the next major release.
> >
> > Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
> > the head and then close the branch?
>
> I've only seen two responses to this and both were ``don't worry''.
> Unless there are good reasons I'm going to declare the 5.0 branch closed
> (which actually means nothing :-).
>
>         Andrew

Re: GDB 5.0.1?

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:50:26PM +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
>> with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
>> (with the NEWS file tweeked).
>> 
>> Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
>> effort into the trunk and the next major release.
>> 
>> Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
>> the head and then close the branch?
>
>I've only seen two responses to this and both were ``don't worry''. 
>Unless there are good reasons I'm going to declare the 5.0 branch closed
>(which actually means nothing :-).

I never got around to including my cygwin fixes into the 5.0.1 branch.
They included changes to some tcl/tk stuff and a reworking of
win32-nat.c (I didn't write this but I'm slowly trying to remove the
"just a quick hack to get gdb working" feeling from it) This was
necessary to improve functionality on Windows 2000.

However, I'm still getting reports that my changes don't work for
everyone so gdb-for-windows is not in a state where it is 100% usable
yet.

Since many Windows users seem to use the cygwin binaries, I think it is
ok to skip this, eventually putting a link to a windows version on the
gdb web page.

I've modified the script which produces a gdb.exe to change the version
to something like "5.0 (20000711)".  Is this adequate to differentiate
gdb from a stock gdb 5.0?  Should I add a "cygwin release" in there or
something?

cgf

Re: GDB 5.0.1?

[Andrew Cagney]

Chris Faylor wrote:

> I've modified the script which produces a gdb.exe to change the version
> to something like "5.0 (20000711)".  Is this adequate to differentiate
> gdb from a stock gdb 5.0?  Should I add a "cygwin release" in there or
> something?

Yes, great.  Thanks!  Now how do I get CVS to do it for me :-)

	Andrew