GDB 8.3 release -- 2019-01-11 update

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

Hello again,

New update for the GDB-8.3 release. Reminder: The target date
for creating the branch is:

        Tue Jan 15th

The wiki page for tracking known issues is at:

    https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_8.3_Release

Fixed since the last update:

  * [JoelB] <NO PR>
    GDB crash re-running program on Windows

        Fix in review:
        https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00443.html

  * [KeithS] gdb/23712 (**inherited from 8.2.1**)
    dw2_add_symbol_to_list language assertion

    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-01/msg00231.html
    Well done, Keith, and thanks to everyone who participated in
    all the discussions!

  * [SimonM] gdb/23893
    Search paths for debug files for remote debuggee checks are broken
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23893

Known blocking issues:

  * [TomT/Joel] <NO PR>
    GDB UI word wrapping broken/interferes with 'set style'
    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-12/msg00435.html
    https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-01/msg00098.html

    From what I can tell, "set style enabled off" doesn't prevent
    the problem from happening either. Tom indicated in his last
    message he has a fix, and just needs a testcase.

    I will try to run it against AdaCore's testsuite, which hit
    that issue quite a bit, so probably a good testbed too.

Looking at the PRs marked 8.3 as the milestone, I also see...

  * [TomT] tui/20819
    Binding Control-j in inputrc breaks "layout asm"
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20819

    ... but i don't understand why this would be blocking for 8.3.
    It would be nice to have a way to get a more detailed history
    of the changes made to the status of that PR so we can determine
    when it was marked 8.3. My suspicion is that it was marked 8.3
    when fixed by Tom, and then the PR got re-opened (around Jan 2nd)
    due to a regression.

    Tom - do you confirm this is not a critical bug, other than
    maybe the regression, in which case it would be sufficient to
    simply revert?

Any other issue, please let us know...

Thank you!
-- 
Joel