This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: build/1411: Build of gdb-6.0 on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 fails
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: chastain at sourceware dot org
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 14 Dec 2003 20:38:00 -0000
- Subject: Re: build/1411: Build of gdb-6.0 on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 fails
- Reply-to: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
The following reply was made to PR build/1411; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: John David Anglin <dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
Cc: chastain@sourceware.org, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: build/1411: Build of gdb-6.0 on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 fails
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:29:01 -0500
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 08:08:00PM -0000, John David Anglin wrote:
> I'm currently using 5.0 under hpux 10.20. It's definitely true that
> the code has been rotting. The old Utah versions were probably about
> the best. My impression is that HP got ideas to enhance gdb and added
> a lot of of poorly integrated features that contributed to the rot.
>
> My desire for newer versions is mainly to get better support for
> debugging C++ and languages other than C.
>
> Some of the problems that I see in using gdb are:
>
> 1) Poor frame recognition in stack traces. Sometimes it's not possible
> to do a backtrace.
>
> 2) Problems recognizing complex symbols.
>
> 3) Problems following forks.
>
> 4) Crashes and getting confused to the point that I have to quit a session.
>
> 5) p function () segfaults under hppa-linux. This problem has been fixed
> a couple of times but it seems to keep coming back.
>
> 6) There seem to be some dwarf2 problems on hppa64.
In an earlier message you said:
It appears from your response that PA-RISC support within the
gdb project is seriously threatened.
Michael's reassuring comments aside, I believe this is true. I've been
repeatedly requesting various members of the debian-hppa project to
clean up and contribue the hppa-linux patches we (Debian) use for GDB
and have been unable to find a volunteer. They include an entirely
rewritten target (pa-tdep instead of hppa-tdep, IIRC), which is now
full of bitrot and deprecated methods just like the existing one.
I don't know if hppa-linux builds from CVS. I'd be surprised if it
worked, even if it does build.
Without a maintainer I don't know how long this code can survive.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer