From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Sep 19 23:15:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from iclub.nsu.ru (iclub.nsu.ru [193.124.222.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DDF37B423; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fjoe@localhost) by iclub.nsu.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15190; Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:15:17 +0700 (NSS) (envelope-from fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:15:16 +0700 (NSS) From: Max Khon To: "David O'Brien" Cc: Randell Jesup , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Bruce Bauman Subject: Re: GDB 4.18 and shared libraries (Mozilla) In-Reply-To: <20000919103436.B94601@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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