>> Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports]
Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my local mainline binutils tree. That is a bit different than indicating the work is in proper FreeBSD /usr/port patch form or canonical FSF patch form. ;-) >> but pointed out what you have already pointed out to me:[...] > There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. > We've been maintaining it in our own tree for some time now. > There's advantages to maintaining it in our own tree anyways. > Our threads library is still under development, not to mention > threadsNG where a lot is probably going to change. I completely agree with the advantage listed. However, overall, I must disagree with you as one working on improving gcc3 both in general and for FreeBSD. I wouldn't disagree with you if the base gdb in FreeBSD could debug the latest C++ and Dwarf output from gcc 3. Either way, I concede that my gdb requirements are a special case... Regards, Loren -- Loren J. Rittle Senior Staff Software Engineer, Distributed Object Technology Lab Networks and Infrastructure Research Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED], KeyID: 2048/ADCE34A5, FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
