From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14940 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 16:56:41 -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 14930 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 16:56:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 16:56:40 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B133F2B7F; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F41053F.5080304@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:56:00 -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: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: 6.0 issues References: <3F40F66E.1080508@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 > Off the top of my head: > > - the gdb.cp re-vamp scheduled for near the end of this week > - red zone re-fix > > And I guess: > > - something about GDB vs GCC over unknown CFI register values > > New features shouldn't be going into the 6.0 branch (although there is an extreem tollerance towards targets getting their frame code rewritten :-). I should add, I'm thinking of rolling out a draft this weekend (2003-08-23), and the final a week later (2003-08-30ish). Andrew