This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS



That aside, I don't like the current design.

[which "current"? :-)]


 The earlier design had a
list of (sometimes fairly trivial) regressions since 6.0, coupled with
a much more serious outstanding problem; these two shouldn't be mixed.
If we decide that we don't want regressions since 6.0 to be in a
separate section, then we should apply the same criteria to everything
listed under the header "C++ support" (or whatever), and decide to
either only list serious bugs or else list every problem that we know
about.

The current list of C++ problems needs some serious editing. For instance:


gdb/1512: no canonical way to output names of C++ types
(which is about gdb printing "const char *" vs "char const *")
can hardly be described as "mission critical". Contrast it to JeffJ's discovery that GDB can't debug an NPTL threaded program that does a thread delete/create, outch! (but something we likely won't mention in problems).


As for some of the others, I think they would be better served as notes in the documentation (i.e., gdb.texinfo).

Personally, the old division makes more sense to me: a list of all
regressions, plus some more serious outstanding issues.  Obviously the
header "Regressions since 5.3" should be changed, however.

How about: serious problems that have been fixed in the mainline but are too nasty to backport?


Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]