This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
[PATCH] Add GDB release criteria to TODO
- To: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: [PATCH] Add GDB release criteria to TODO
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:22:59 +1000
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
Per, previous RFC, I've applied the attatched patch to the TODO file.
Andrew
Mon Mar 27 19:53:29 2000 Andrew Cagney <cagney@b1.cygnus.com>
* TODO: Update. Add criteria for next release of GDB.
Index: TODO
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/TODO,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.2
diff -p -r1.1.1.2 TODO
*** TODO 1999/05/05 14:42:08 1.1.1.2
--- TODO 2000/03/27 10:21:56
*************** bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu. If you would l
*** 3,10 ****
you should consider sending mail to the same address, to find out
whether anyone else is working on it.
! General To Do List
------------------
This list is probably not up to date, and opinions vary about the
importance or even desirability of some of the items.
--- 3,334 ----
you should consider sending mail to the same address, to find out
whether anyone else is working on it.
!
! TODO: GDB 5.0
! =============
!
! Here are _all_ the issues that have been raised vis-a-vis the 5.0
! release. Also check the GDB, and other, mail archives
! (http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/).
!
! If, however, you fix something, then feel free to tweek this file
! (deleting the problem). Just send a note to gdb-patches so that I see
! the change.
!
! The names in paren are those that might know more about the problem.
! They don't necessarily indicate the people that will fix the problem.
!
! --
!
! GDB 5.0: Must have
------------------
+
+ These are things that have been identifed as must-have for this
+ release of GDB.
+
+ --
+
+ Watch point related patches (Eli Zaretskii, Michael Snyder, ???)
+
+ Eli writes: This doesn't include the watchpoint-related patches I sent
+ beginning with August or September, and mentioned them again three
+ weeks ago. Here again are the pointers to the relevant messages:
+
+ Hardware breakpoints and watchpoints: patches
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q3/msg00173.html
+
+ Re: Hardware breakpoints and watchpoints: patches
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q3/msg00204.html
+
+ Re: Hardware breakpoints and watchpoints: patches
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q4/msg00200.html
+
+ Hardware watchpoints for bitfields
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/1999-q4/msg00201.html
+
+ --
+
+ Tom's speedups to GDB (Tom Tromey, Jim Blandy)
+
+ I believe that there was a late breaking fix that stopped a coredump.
+
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00869.html
+
+ --
+
+ Solaris/x86 - which? (Nick Duffek, Peter Schauer, Michael Snyder?)
+
+ Nick D's working through patches from Michael Snyder and Peter S.
+
+ --
+
+ Texinfo broken/builds (Andrew Cagney, Stan Shebs)
+
+ Cagney probably botched a fix to a botch.
+
+ --
+
+ x86 linux GDB and SIGALRM
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00803.html
+
+ --
+
+ RFA: breakpoint.c: Minor output fixes for hardware watchpoints
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00558.html
+
+ During implementation of hardware watchpoints on Solaris, I noticed the
+ following inconsistencies in breakpoint.c output between software and
+ hardware breakpoints.
+
+ --
+
+ GDB 5.0: Nice to have
+ ---------------------
+
+ These are things that might make it in 5.0 but don't sit in the
+ critical path. If they miss the 5.0 cut then they definitly should
+ make the follow-on release.
+
+ --
+
+ Generic: lin-thread cannot handle thread exit (Mark Kettenis, Michael Snyder)
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00525.html
+
+ The thread_db assisted debugging code doesn't handle exiting threads
+ properly, at least in combination with glibc 2.1.3 (the framework is
+ there, just not the actual code). There are at least two problems
+ that prevent this from working.
+
+ As an additional reference point, the pre thread_db code didn't work
+ either.
+
+ --
+
+ Java (Anthony Green, David Taylor)
+
+ Anthony Green has started contributing late breaking Java patches:
+
+ Patch: java tests
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00512.html
+
+ Patch: java booleans
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00515.html
+
+ Patch: handle N_MAIN stab
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00527.html
+
+ It should be able to squeeze these in.
+
+ --
+
+ Pascal (Pierre Muller, David Taylor)
+
+ The pascal support patches nave been added to the patch data base. I
+ [cagney] strongly suspect that they are better suited for 5.1.
+
+ --
+
+ Programs run under GDB have SIGCHLD masked.
+
+ [I think this can be worked around by using the action command -
+ cagney]
+
+ --
+
+ GNU/Linux/x86 and random thread signals (and Solaris/SPARC but not
+ Solaris/x86)
+
+ Christopher Blizzard writes:
+
+ So, I've done some more digging into this and it looks like Jim
+ Kingdon has reported this problem in the past:
+
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/bug-gdb/1999-10/msg00058.html
+
+ I can reproduce this problem both with and without Tom's patch. Has
+ anyone seen this before? Maybe have a solution for it hanging around?
+ :)
+
+ There's a test case for this documented at:
+
+ when debugging threaded applications you get extra SIGTRAPs
+ http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9565
+
+ [There should be a GDB testcase - cagney]
+
+ --
+
+ IRIX?
+
+ Benjamin Gamsa wrote:
+
+ Has anyone successfully built the latest (from cvs) gdb on IRIX6.4 or
+ later? The first problem I hit is that proc-api.c includes
+ sys/user.h, which no longer exists under IRIX6.4. If I comment out
+ that include, the next problem I hit is that PIOCGETPR and PIOCGETU
+ are no longer defined in IRIX6.4 (presumably related to the
+ disappearance of user.h).
+
+ --
+
+ Regressions (prologue) with devel GCC.
+
+ The current head of the GCC branch doesn't co-operate well with GDB
+ over debug information.
+
+ Regressions problem (200 failures)
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00475.html
+
+ --
+
+ RFA: infrun.c, breakpoint.c: Kludge for Solaris x86 hardware watchpoint support
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00664.html
+
+ Unfortunately I'd need the following kludge to work around a Solaris
+ x86 kernel problem with hardware watchpoint support. See the comment
+ in the patches for a description of the problem.
+
+ --
+
+ RFD: infrun.c: No bpstat_stop_status call after proceed over break ?
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-q1/msg00665.html
+
+ I am currently trying to fix a GDB bug with missing watchpoint triggers
+ after proceeding over a breakpoint on x86 targets.
+
+ --
+
+ GDB 5.0: Won't have
+ -------------------
+
+ The following are on hold until GDB 5.0 is branched. In general they
+ won't go in as they unsettle the GDB sources.
+
+ --
+
+ ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
+
+ The need for this as almost been eliminated. The next version of GCC
+ (assuming cagney gets the revised patch approved) will be able to
+ supress unused parameter warnings.
+
+ --
+
+ Delete macro TARGET_BYTE_ORDER_SELECTABLE.
+
+ Patches in the database.
+
+ --
+
+ Updated readline
+
+ Readline 4.? is out. A merge wouldn't hurt.
+
+ --
+
+ Purge PARAMS
+
+ Something to do post 5.0 branch
+
+ --
+
+ GDB 5.0: Test results
+ ---------------------
+
+ Please include:
+
+ o the output of `config.guess`
+ o the date
+ o the compiler
+ o a note mentioning the reason
+ for any serious failures.
+
+ --
+
+ alpha-dec-osf4.0a, vendor compiler, 2000-03-04
+
+ Still has many compile warnings (mostly relating back to PTR vs void*)
+ but it did compile using:
+
+ CC=cc .../configure
+ make
+
+ Test results are:
+
+ # of expected passes 6223
+ # of unexpected failures 103
+ # of unexpected successes 2
+ # of expected failures 196
+ # of unresolved testcases 6
+ # of unsupported tests 1
+
+ Looking at the output it would appear that GDB is stepping into some
+ functions instead of ``next'' ing over them:
+
+ 35 dummy();
+ (gdb) next
+ dummy () at /home/cagney/GDB-DEJAGNU/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/all-types.c:41
+ 41 {
+
+ Since there is no active maintainer, I'd consider this sufficient for
+ 5.0 :-/
+
+ --
+
+ sparc-sun-solaris2.6, egcs-2.91.66, 2000-02-10
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-testers/2000-q1/msg00030.html
+
+ There is a SIGTRAP problem that occures in ptrace.exp (Cagney to
+ expand on).
+
+ # of expected passes 6420
+ # of unexpected failures 7
+ # of expected failures 199
+
+ --
+
+ solaris 2.5.1 sparc?, 2.9-gnupro-99r1, 2000-02-10
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb-testers/2000-q1/msg00032.html
+
+ # of expected passes 6420
+ # of unexpected failures 6
+ # of expected failures 199
+
+ --
+
+ sparc-unknown-netbsdelf1.4P, egcs-1.1.2+, 2000-03-01
+
+ This is with a very recent kernel.
+
+ # of expected passes 6055
+ # of unexpected failures 88
+ # of unexpected successes 1
+ # of expected failures 190
+ # of unresolved testcases 59
+
+ --
+
+ GNU/Linux PPC
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00185.html
+
+ Kevins merged it all in.
+
+ --
+
+ Unixware
+
+ Builds ok. Problems with some of the thread code. Unfortunate but
+ not a show stopper. Nick D's still looking at it.
+
+ Re: uw-threads issues
+ http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-q1/msg00025.html
+
+
+ ------------------------------------------------
+
+
+ General Wish List
+ =================
This list is probably not up to date, and opinions vary about the
importance or even desirability of some of the items.