X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:43:10 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<01c4df09$Blat.v2.2.2$c5243280@zahav.net.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2
In-reply-to:	<200412101534.46509.pavenis@latnet.lv> (message from Andris
	Pavenis on Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:34:46 +0200)
Subject:	Re: Patches to build GDB 6.3
References:	<01c4c987$Blat.v2.2.2$52b9e920 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412101102 DOT 21274 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <01c4deb6$Blat.v2.2.2$b539e160 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412101534 DOT 46509 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> 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 -