GDB respin

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

> In fact, if the console problem can be resolved, I think there is a very 
> strong incentive to quickly spin out a 5.4.

Okay, on my next spin I will go through the 'Compare by GDB' table and
chase down all the differences and write a report on 5.3 versus HEAD.

My recollection is that there aren't any serious problems, at least in
the parts I cover.  Which is like saying that New York City doesn't have
a serious crime problem in the area between 40th and 60th streets and
3rd and 8th avenues.  :)

gdb.base/testsuite and gdb.c++/testsuite have no gdb regressions between
5.3 and 2003-01-20.

There are some new tests in gdb.base/advance.exp and gdb.base/until.exp
that FAIL with gcc v3, but that is a problem with the tests rather than
gdb.  Briefly, after the return from a call to 'foo();', the current
line might be on line N or on line N+1 depending on the compiler, but
the test script always expects to be on line N.  The cheesy way out
would be to change the program-under-test to 'foo(), bar();' with a
comma operator to force a sequence point.

One issue is that all the MI tests got shuffled so that every MI
non-PASS might be a regression or might not be.  Someone has to look at
the MI results on four configurations (gcc v2/v3 and dwarf-2/stabs+) and
say whether they are must-fix or not.

Michael C