GDB 5.1?

Andrew Cagney
Tue Jul 4 02:02:00 GMT 2000

(Ok, so it is Tuesday, I was ment to send this out yesterday).

Now is probably the time to start to think about another GDB release. 
Should it occure, and if so when?  What should be fixed, what would be
nice to fix?

I've attatched the immediatly relevant sections of the TODO file.

While the TODO file contains many other potential I'd rather see the
emphasis on finishing a small subset of that wish list.   If others are
achieved then, that is a bonus.


                Known problems in GDB 5.0

Below is a list of problems identified during the GDB 5.0 release
cycle.  People hope to have these problems fixed in a follow-on


The BFD directory requires bug-fixed AUTOMAKE

AUTOMAKE 1.4 incorrectly set the TEXINPUTS environment variable.  It
contained the full path to texinfo.tex when it should have only
contained the directory.  The bug has been fixed in the current
AUTOMAKE sources.  Automake snapshots can be found in:


RFD: infrun.c: No bpstat_stop_status call after proceed over break?

GDB misses watchpoint triggers after proceeding over a breakpoint on
x86 targets.


x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM (???)

I know there are problems with single stepping through signal
handlers.  These problems were present in 4.18.  They were just masked
because 4.18 failed to recognize signal handlers.  Fixing it is not
easy, and will require changes to handle_inferior_event(), that I
prefer not to make before the 5.0 release.



Revised UDP support (was: Re: [Fwd: [patch] UDP transport support])

(Broken) support for GDB's remote protocol across UDP is to be
included in the follow-on release.


Can't build IRIX -> arm GDB.

David Whedon writes:
> Now I'm building for an embedded arm target.  If there is a way of turning
> remote-rdi off, I couldn't find it. It looks like it gets built by default
> in gdb/configure.tgt(line 58) Anyway, the build dies in
> gdb/rdi-share/unixcomm.c.  SERPORT1 et. al. never get defined because we
> aren't one of the architectures supported.


Problem with weak functions

Dan Nicolaescu writes:
> It seems that gdb-4.95.1  does not display correctly the function when
> stoping in weak functions. 
> It stops in a function that is defined as weak, not in the function
> that is actualy run... 


GDB 5.0 doesn't work on Linux/SPARC


                Code Cleanups: Next Release

The following are small cleanups that will hopefully be completed by
the follow on to 5.0.



Patches in the database.



Eliminate all uses of PARAMS in GDB's source code.


Fix copyright notices.

Turns out that ``1998-2000'' isn't considered valid :-(


Find something better than DEFAULT_BFD_ARCH, DEFAULT_BFD_VEC to
determine the default isa/byte-order.


Rely on BFD_BIG_ENDIAN and BFD_LITTLE_ENDIAN instead of host dependant


More information about the Gdb mailing list