GDB 5.0.1?

Chris Faylor
Tue Jul 11 18:16:00 GMT 2000

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:50:26PM +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> So is an incremental release worth it?  Personally, I've no problems
>> with just re-spinning the head of the 5.0 branch and calling it 5.0.1
>> (with the NEWS file tweeked).
>> Beyond that, I've reservations, I'd rather see people putting more
>> effort into the trunk and the next major release.
>> Opinions?  Give it 2-4 more weeks and then just re-spin what ever is on
>> the head and then close the branch?
>I've only seen two responses to this and both were ``don't worry''. 
>Unless there are good reasons I'm going to declare the 5.0 branch closed
>(which actually means nothing :-).

I never got around to including my cygwin fixes into the 5.0.1 branch.
They included changes to some tcl/tk stuff and a reworking of
win32-nat.c (I didn't write this but I'm slowly trying to remove the
"just a quick hack to get gdb working" feeling from it) This was
necessary to improve functionality on Windows 2000.

However, I'm still getting reports that my changes don't work for
everyone so gdb-for-windows is not in a state where it is 100% usable

Since many Windows users seem to use the cygwin binaries, I think it is
ok to skip this, eventually putting a link to a windows version on the
gdb web page.

I've modified the script which produces a gdb.exe to change the version
to something like "5.0 (20000711)".  Is this adequate to differentiate
gdb from a stock gdb 5.0?  Should I add a "cygwin release" in there or


More information about the Gdb mailing list