From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6602 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2004 19:32:31 -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 6595 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2004 19:32:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e34.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.132) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2004 19:32:31 -0000 Received: from westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.32]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i66JWO10441252; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:32:24 -0400 Received: from austin.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i66JWNqY201406; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:32:23 -0600 Received: from lazy.austin.ibm.com (lazy.austin.ibm.com [9.53.94.97]) by austin.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i66JWMKw042802; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:32:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:32:00 -0000 From: Manoj Iyer X-X-Sender: manjo@lazy To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb 6.2 blockers In-Reply-To: <20040706182423.393F34B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Message-ID: References: <20040706182423.393F34B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 anyone got a chance to look at PR# 1704 ?? Thanks Manjo On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > ac> - 1650 is an issue, but even there I'm wondering how much. It's ticking > ac> a horrible nasty race condition and may not be a real problem in the > ac> field - do people really run 100 thread programs using linuxthreads. > > 1650, manythreads.exp, works every time with gdb 6.1.1. > So if there's a kernel race condition then gdb does not trigger it > and gdb HEAD does. This is a user-visible regression. > > ac> - architecture specific problems HP/UX, and much of e500, that can be > ac> committed after the branch > > 1692 is not arch-specific. The bug was introduced by a change in > bp_stop_status, and partially fixed by a change in bp_stop_status. > gdb recognizes its watchpoints now, but cannot backtrace after > hitting one. > > The 32-vs-64-bit register change is definitely arch-specific. > > All the changes are available at: > > http://www.shout.net/~mec/sunday/2004-07-02-hpux/difference/6.1-HEAD-0.html > > I don't accept your conclusion that changes which manifest on hpux > must be in arch-specific code. I won't know until I dig into each > of the 14 test scripts with regressed results. It's up to me to do > that and file PR's. > > Michael C >