Re: Preparing for the GDB 5.0 / GDB 2000 / GDB2k release

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

Jim Kingdon writes:

> Sending in patches is a great way to show commitment, yes.  Care to
> list the patches which have been submitted but not checked in?  URLs
> to sourceware.cygnus.com mail archives are sufficient

I have a few patches that I submitted in the (very distant) past, and
which, last time I checked, were not yet committed in the CVS tree.

The first group of patches is here:

  http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q3/msg00173.htm

Michael Snyder accepted (and committed) some of them, but rejected the
rest.  I replied to his objections in the following messages:

  http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q3/msg00204.htm
  http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q4/msg00200.htm

My considerations were never responded to, and the rest of the patches
I suggested are not in the CVS tree (as of a week ago).  I have these
patches installed in the version of GDB I'm using every day, and I
have yet to see a single problem with them.  Last time I heard about
this issue from Michael was in September, when I was asked to wait.  I
believe I waited enough ;-).

I posted another group of patches here:

  http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q4/msg00201.html

These patches allow to put hardware watchpoints on bitfields, and also
fix problems that were introduced by the patch suggested by Jim Blandy
(which used value chains to watch struct members and array elements
with hardware watchpoints).  See the thread "Hardware watchpoints"
back in November 1999, for more details.

I never heard any response to those patches, although I believe that
without them, hardware watchpoints are pretty much broken as far as
structs and arrays are concerned.  Again, the patched version works
very well for me.

Can we *please* resolve these issues some time soon?