Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:12 -0700
From: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:50:02 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gang,
With the gcc(1) dust not
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
o We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1 todo
list to the 5.2 todo list. I think this is just a bug
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
A1 If having support for amd64 is a major reason for doing a new
import of GDB, importing the upcoming GDB 6.0 would make more sense
to me.
No ia64 is the major reason :-)
Hmm. I think I just crashed
FSF GDB releases use a libbfd that's basically a
snapshot taken at the point where the release branch was cut.
Hmm, seems like a motivation for a libbfd port that tracks the
snapshot, for this very reason.
mcl
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:50:02 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gang,
With the gcc(1) dust not even settled yet, I like to get some feedback
on gdb(1). AFAICT, this is the deal:
o Both ia64
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
o We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:28:08PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
FSF GDB releases use a libbfd that's basically a
snapshot taken at the point where the release branch was cut.
Hmm, seems like a motivation for a libbfd port that tracks the
snapshot, for this very reason.
NO!
--
-- David
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
I'd say: upgrade gdb(1) and add support for ia64 and amd64, as well
as make sure we fix any known showstopper bugs we know of.
[ ... ]
Thoughts?
Will remote source level kernel debugging continue to work?
-- Terry
___
[EMAIL
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:50:02 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gang,
With the gcc(1) dust not even settled yet, I like to get some feedback
on gdb(1). AFAICT, this is the deal:
o Both ia64 and amd64 need gdb(1) support before they can become a
tier 1
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
o We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1 todo
list to the 5.2 todo list. I think this is just a bug fix.
I'm not really familliar with the support for debugging FreeBSD
kernels in GDB since that
10 matches
Mail list logo