Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:15:16 +0700 (NSS)
From:      Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
To:        "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Bruce Bauman <bbauman@wgate.com>
Subject:   Re: GDB 4.18 and shared libraries (Mozilla)
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009201229450.13341-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20000919103436.B94601@dragon.nuxi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there!

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, David O'Brien wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:14:30PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > ld is broken. apply attached patch, rebuild everything in
> > src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils and relink libraries.
> > the patch is taken from binutils cvs (elf32-i386.c 1.8 -> 1.9)
> > there is open PR for this (20373) but I cannot submit a followup for some
> > reason.
> 
> I do not know why you say `ld' when it is a most a BFD problem.  I also
> dare say that if you were using GDB 5.0 (or a snapshot from the HEAD
> branch) this would not be a problem.

ok. I said `ld' because libbfd is statically linked.
do you plan to MFC GDB 5.0? if yes, when we can expect it to appear in
-stable? will you upgrade binutils as well? PR/20373 definitely
is not a GDB problem. this can be easily seen from nm output, or if we
do not trust nm (given that fact that libbfd is broken) from hexdump
output. ok, I will try GDB 5.0 on my -current machine at home today.

> Rev 1.8 of bfd/elf32-i386.c is the version in Binutils 2.10.0, rev 1.9
> was committed after the binutils_2.10 release branch was created.  The
> Binutils maintainers do not feel there are any critical bugs in 2.10.0.
> Thus they have not committed rev 1.9 to the binutils_2.10 release branch.
> You are free to try to convince them that rev 1.9 should be committed to
> the binutils_2.10 release branch so that it will show up in Binutils
> 2.10.1.  But that is a battle I do not wish to fight.
> 
> Thus the lack of the rev 1.8-1.9 change is a GDB/Binutils problem, not a
> FreeBSD one.

this IS a FreeBSD problem. the fact is: FreeBSD 4.x has broken binutils
(but it affects only debugging process) and broken g++ (incorrect code
generation). the second problem is quite serious. solutions exist for both
problems for quite long time but nothing has been done so far (please
understand that I am not blaming you). what can help us to solve this?
more committers who deal with binutils/gcc? money?

another question is how can one get to know official information
(if such exists), for example, about planned binutils/gcc/gdb changes.

/fjoe



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009201229450.13341-100000>