GDB schedule.

GDB schedule.

[Andrew Cagney]

While it suggests a GDB 6.0.1 in November, it might be better to skip to 
6.1 and do that sooner.  This is because it might be easier to do a new 
branch than try to back port all the frame code to the old branch.

http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/schedule/
               CURRENT (6.0)             NEXT (6.1))
Branch:  Sat June 21 (2003-06-21)    January (2004-01)
Release: Mon October 6 (2003-10-06)  Febuary (2004-03)
reSpin:  Mon November 3 (2003-11-03) March (2004-01)

comments,
Andrew

Re: GDB schedule.

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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

Re: GDB schedule.

[Andrew Cagney]

> 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.

Andrew

Re: GDB schedule.

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

My comments:

I will keep testing and reporting on the branch while we come
to a decision.

gdb HEAD has some regressions versus gdb 6.0, especially with C++.
In the near future, I'm going to do a "HEAD versus 6.0" report so that 
people can work on them.

I think the regression bugs in gdb HEAD are small enough that we can fix
them all in time to cut a branch in January, but that is just informal.
We do have to fix these bugs anyways.

I'm not qualified to say whether there are any big projects in progress
that won't finish by January.

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.

Michael C