Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-14 Thread Mark Kettenis
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread Mark Kettenis
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread Mark Linimon
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-13 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-12 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-12 Thread Mark Kettenis
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

Re: GDB - do we dare?

2003-07-12 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
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