Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2004/12/10/17:43:39
> From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:34:46 +0200
>
> > That's probably because the GDB numbering for BP and SP was changed at
> > some point between 6.1.1 and 6.2. That change was done for all x86
> > targets, including Cygwin and DJGPP. I agreed to that change only
> > after someone posted a test program an a GDB session transcript to the
> > GDB mailing list that clearly show that the previous numbering was in
> > error, and I was able to reproduce the problem on my machine with the
> > DJGPP port of GDB. So that change was in the right direction; we
> > should not undo it.
>
> Maybe the tests were done with executables compiled with gcc-2.95.3.
No, I did it with GCC 3.x, although I don't remember what was the
value of x back then.
If it is important to retest that, I can try it again with newer
versions of GCC and several versions of GDB. I have quite a few
binaries, both of GCC and GDB, on my machine. (GCC since 2.95.2 and
GDB since 5.0.)
> 1) We could wait for gcc-4.0.0 and fix problem there. In that case gdb-6.2 and
> newers will not work correctly with DJGPP ports of gcc-3.X
But it will be broken with GDB 6.2 and later only for C++ exceptions,
right? I mean, GDB 6.2 works for me in C programs compiled with GCC
3.3.3, including backtraces.
> 2) I could rebuild fixed gcc-3.4.3. In that place we should require at least
> all C++ sources to be rebuilt (Better all to avoid breakage of GDB backtrace
> command). Maybe also gcc-3.3.5 should be rebuilt (the same requirements)
If you can afford that, I'd suggest a new upload of GCC 3.4.3. We can
leave the older versions alone (people who need this problem fixed can
be told to upgrade their GCC).
- Raw text -