From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27498 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 20:25:30 -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 27387 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 20:25:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 20:25:28 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26312B2F; Fri, 9 May 2003 16:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EBC0EB6.4050201@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 20:25:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6 References: <200305091817.h49IHiYN011921@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney writes: > >> Given this, I think the next release of GDB should be named ``GDB 6''. > > > I was hoping that it would be gdb 5.4, and that we would tell > everyone that has 5.3 that it's good for them to upgrade to 5.4. > > Guess I'm outvoted. :) It's all marketing anyway :-) > The last time I compared 5.3 to HEAD was more than a month ago. > HEAD was in pretty good shape then -- better than gdb-5_3-branch > was when it was branched. > > I will try to get back to testing and reporting soon, but I can't > promise anything. Mostly yes. [poor] Kevin keeps finding problems with with the MIPS and the new frame code. I'd suspect a similar situtation with other architectures. So when it works it works well, but when it fails it really goes down - typical behavior for a new .0 release :-^ Andrew