This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB respin
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:51:30 -0600
- Subject: Re: GDB respin
> In fact, if the console problem can be resolved, I think there is a very
> strong incentive to quickly spin out a 5.4.
Okay, on my next spin I will go through the 'Compare by GDB' table and
chase down all the differences and write a report on 5.3 versus HEAD.
My recollection is that there aren't any serious problems, at least in
the parts I cover. Which is like saying that New York City doesn't have
a serious crime problem in the area between 40th and 60th streets and
3rd and 8th avenues. :)
gdb.base/testsuite and gdb.c++/testsuite have no gdb regressions between
5.3 and 2003-01-20.
There are some new tests in gdb.base/advance.exp and gdb.base/until.exp
that FAIL with gcc v3, but that is a problem with the tests rather than
gdb. Briefly, after the return from a call to 'foo();', the current
line might be on line N or on line N+1 depending on the compiler, but
the test script always expects to be on line N. The cheesy way out
would be to change the program-under-test to 'foo(), bar();' with a
comma operator to force a sequence point.
One issue is that all the MI tests got shuffled so that every MI
non-PASS might be a regression or might not be. Someone has to look at
the MI results on four configurations (gcc v2/v3 and dwarf-2/stabs+) and
say whether they are must-fix or not.
Michael C