gdb 5.1

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.porting
1

What’s about gdb 5.1 porting, it is done or not yet ?

Thanks !

2

We’re working on it. There was a fair amount of difference between 5.0
and 5.1 so we’re re-examining our port to clean it up some. Much of our
code from the 4.x series was brought forward without being refactored
enough so we need to start using the 5.x methods rather than the deprecated
4.x stuff. Right now we’ve got our next release to work on so it may take
a little while. :wink:

cheers,

Kris

Mike Gorchak <mike@malva.com.ua> wrote:

What’s about gdb 5.1 porting, it is done or not yet ?

Thanks !

–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra

3

Perhaps your time could be better spent on cleaning up the mess you call
‘procfs’. If it was made reasonably SVR4-compliant, you would not need to
mess with GDB so much, it should ‘just work’.

  • igor

“Kris Eric Warkentin” <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9vafls$rec$1@nntp.qnx.com…

We’re working on it. There was a fair amount of difference between 5.0
and 5.1 so we’re re-examining our port to clean it up some. Much of our
code from the 4.x series was brought forward without being refactored
enough so we need to start using the 5.x methods rather than the
deprecated
4.x stuff. Right now we’ve got our next release to work on so it may take
a little while. > :wink:

cheers,

Kris

Mike Gorchak <> mike@malva.com.ua> > wrote:
What’s about gdb 5.1 porting, it is done or not yet ?

Thanks !



\

Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra

4

I’m just the junior tools/utils towel boy so I can’t really say much about
that. You’d have to talk to the kernel guys. I didn’t realize that there
were standards for the behaviour of /proc. I suppose it makes sense though,
if for no other reason than portability.

Kris

Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote:

Perhaps your time could be better spent on cleaning up the mess you call
‘procfs’. If it was made reasonably SVR4-compliant, you would not need to
mess with GDB so much, it should ‘just work’.

  • igor

“Kris Eric Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:9vafls$rec$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
We’re working on it. There was a fair amount of difference between 5.0
and 5.1 so we’re re-examining our port to clean it up some. Much of our
code from the 4.x series was brought forward without being refactored
enough so we need to start using the 5.x methods rather than the
deprecated
4.x stuff. Right now we’ve got our next release to work on so it may take
a little while. > :wink:

cheers,

Kris

Mike Gorchak <> mike@malva.com.ua> > wrote:
What’s about gdb 5.1 porting, it is done or not yet ?

Thanks !



\

Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra

–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
“Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”
–E.W.Dijkstra

5

Mike Gorchak <mike@malva.com.ua> wrote:

What’s about gdb 5.1 porting, it is done or not yet ?

The code base has changed enough that it is not a trivial
task for us to move to 5.1.

It is being looked at, but it is not ready, and I have no
ETA.

Regards,
Graeme Peterson

Thanks !