Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3D1A17D0.66749584@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:36:48 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc-3.1.X and DWARF2 debugging info for DJGPP
References:	<3D19C2DD DOT 1004 DOT 8F32B0 AT localhost> <3D19DA02 DOT 11875 DOT 20CAF8 AT localhost>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 
> On 26 Jun 2002 at 14:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
[snip]
> > Personally, I'm not sure we are ready to switch to DWARF2 as the default
> > format.  But if others think otherwise, I won't object.
> 
> From first impression it seems to be not so bad. But perhaps more testing is
> needed. I'm using practically only DWARF2 debugging info for my own
> programs  (mostly C++ with often rather heavy use of STL etc.) already for
> some time.
>
> Well, I put archives of my build of gcc-3.1.1 20020625 (prerelease) at
>         http://www.ltn.lv/~pavenis/gcctest.html
> 
> It would be nice if others would test my binaries and report about problems
> here.
>
> My package of gdb-5.2 is also there. My latest builds of RHIDE also uses
> internally GDB-5.2, so they should be OK.
[snip]

I'm keen for a switch to DWARF-2, because of the mooted advantages for
debugging C++ programs. I don't use C++ much with DJGPP, but I've debugged
reasonably-large STL-based C++ programs at work and it was a right PITA using
non-DWARF-2 debug info.

Andris, I'll try out your build of gdb 5.2.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -