Re: 6.0 issues

Re: 6.0 issues

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

Andrew C says:
- the gdb.cp re-vamp scheduled for near the end of this week

Okay, you and david c both want to do this in the branch, so I will
prepare to do it in the branch.  But I might not make it in time.  First
I am waiting a few more days for comment, then I do it in HEAD, then I
wait some more time to see if problems come up.

It's fine with me if this misses the release -- I assume it's
okay with you?

> New features shouldn't be going into the 6.0 branch (although there is 
> an extreem tollerance towards targets getting their frame code rewritten 
> :-).

In this category I would like to add: Mark K's fix for gdb/1338,
"can't backtrace through select".

Michael C

Re: 6.0 issues

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew C says:
> - the gdb.cp re-vamp scheduled for near the end of this week
> 
> Okay, you and david c both want to do this in the branch, so I will
> prepare to do it in the branch.  But I might not make it in time.  First
> I am waiting a few more days for comment, then I do it in HEAD, then I
> wait some more time to see if problems come up.
> 
> It's fine with me if this misses the release -- I assume it's
> okay with you?

It can wait.  Having it done will be easier in the long run.

Andrew


>> New features shouldn't be going into the 6.0 branch (although there is 
>> an extreem tollerance towards targets getting their frame code rewritten 
>> :-).
> 
> 
> In this category I would like to add: Mark K's fix for gdb/1338,
> "can't backtrace through select".
> 
> Michael C
> 

Re: 6.0 issues

[Andrew Cagney]

> It can wait.

Let me try that again.  The GDB 6.0 draft is happy to wait for this 
gdb.cp re-vamp.  That's why I didn't bother with a draft last weekend :-)

Andrew

Re: 6.0 issues

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

About that Java bug: how about if we document it in PROBLEMS,
and also link to Tom Tromey's 1-line patch for it?

IMHO the 1-line patch is a reasonable workaround and I am
comfortable recommending it to people who encounter the problem.

The bug:

  http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1322
  "internal-error: sect_index_text not initialized" after printing a java type

The workaround:

  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-07/msg00259.html

Actually I would need to make that more of a formal patch and
then attach it to the PR.

OK to do this for gdb 6.0?

Michael C

Re: 6.0 issues

[David Carlton]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:47:24 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> said:

> About that Java bug: how about if we document it in PROBLEMS,
> and also link to Tom Tromey's 1-line patch for it?

I think that's a reasonable compromise.  It would make me even happier
if somebody in the know could look at the patch in question and
suggest whether or not it's appropriate for inclusion in GDB 6.0.

David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com

Re: 6.0 issues

[Andrew Cagney]

> 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

Re: 6.0 issues

[Andrew Cagney]

Just to re-iterate a point: GDB's releases are time rather than feature 
based.

- in the past attempts to do feature based releases have gone badly off 
the rails.  This 6.0 release had some annotate related features and it, 
consistent with the form, has also suffered schedule problems

- the general intent is, once the branch has been cut, only fixes get 
pushed onto it.  The late completion of the annotate stuff has blured 
this, as has the frame stuff, but the general intent is still there.

New features go into the mainline, and people wanting the features can 
pick it up from there.

Andrew

Re: 6.0 issues

[David Carlton]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:53:18 -0400, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> 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

I been happier if the Java bug were fixed; having said that, the bug
was also present in 5.3, albeit for different reasons, so I suppose it
shouldn't be a show-stopper.  But there was a few months in the middle
where Java debugging worked better than it did in 5.3 or does
currently.

David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com

6.0 issues

[Andrew Cagney]

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 
:-).

Andrew