This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Is this information correct?
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:07:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> What's this part about though? I think it's really referring to gdb
> 5.1 instead. 5.2 should be fine.
That was because of this chat I had on IRC:
[03:04] <`Kernel`> Run: not really. I had been awaiting 3.1 to remake world, but unfortunately preliminary tests showed that it outputs crap debug info.
[03:05] <Run> I can't believe that.
[03:05] <Run> Actually, it works fine for me.
[03:05] <`Kernel`> well, on the project I tested with, gdb 5.2 can't find some of the source files.
[03:06] <Run> I have no problems, also using gdb 5.2
[03:06] <`Kernel`> it works perfectly if you switch CXX=g++-3.0.4 instead of g++-3.1
[03:06] <Run> Oh wait
[03:06] <`Kernel`> (and it also says that main() is in some .h)
[03:06] <Run> I had to fix libcwd too because they switched from DW_FORM_string to DW_FORM_strp (pointers into a string table) for source files and directory names.
[03:07] <Run> That could be the reason.
[03:07] <`Kernel`> it could be the reason gdb fails?
[03:07] <Run> I am using the lastest cvs version of gdb, and that works.
[03:07] <Run> yes, because it was changed since 3.1, and it WOULD fuck up the source files
[03:08] <`Kernel`> hmm... ok, I'll try that. Altough gdb 5.2 if I am not mistaken was out May 14, one day before gcc 3.1.
I'll ask `Kernel` if moving to the cvs version of gdb
does help him.
Carlo Wood <email@example.com>