[patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS

[Andrew Cagney]

> That aside, I don't like the current design.

[which "current"? :-)]

>  The earlier design had a
> list of (sometimes fairly trivial) regressions since 6.0, coupled with
> a much more serious outstanding problem; these two shouldn't be mixed.
> If we decide that we don't want regressions since 6.0 to be in a
> separate section, then we should apply the same criteria to everything
> listed under the header "C++ support" (or whatever), and decide to
> either only list serious bugs or else list every problem that we know
> about.

The current list of C++ problems needs some serious editing.  For instance:

gdb/1512: no canonical way to output names of C++ types
(which is about gdb printing "const char *" vs "char const *")
can hardly be described as "mission critical".  Contrast it to JeffJ's 
discovery that GDB can't debug an NPTL threaded program that does a 
thread delete/create, outch! (but something we likely won't mention in 
problems).

As for some of the others, I think they would be better served as notes 
in the documentation (i.e., gdb.texinfo).

> Personally, the old division makes more sense to me: a list of all
> regressions, plus some more serious outstanding issues.  Obviously the
> header "Regressions since 5.3" should be changed, however.

How about: serious problems that have been fixed in the mainline but are 
too nasty to backport?

Andrew