This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.1 and gdb 5.2? (and cygwin gcc 3.1 problem )
True true, although I didn't say gdb was more reliable than gcc, I just
said gcc was more complicated and more experimental because a lot more
people are involved in it and there's a lot more source code etc.
By the way, if I take the 3.1 release branch and compile it under cygwin,
then with certain types of code compiled with with the option "-g" and using
STL I get link errors related to internal STL functions being missing -
stuff that probably should be inlined. Has anyone else seen this?
If I take the beta version from around the end of March I don't get this
problem.
---------------------------------
Q-Games, Dylan Cuthbert.
http://www.q-games.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Henningsen" <kaih@khms.westfalen.de>
To: <gcc@gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 and gdb 5.2?
> dylan@q-games.com (Dylan Cuthbert) wrote on 13.06.02 in
<001c01c21274$fafdf990$2801a8c0@dcuthbert2k>:
>
> > My next stop was going to be the gdb and cygwin lists, however, gcc is
the
> > more complicated and experimental of the other two and I wanted to see
if
> > anyone else was experiencing problems on other platforms too.
>
> What a strange thing to say. From my experience, gcc on cygwin has been
> stable just about forever, but gdb has a history of extreme instability on
> cygnus. (The first gdb I used on cygwin had a tendency to crash on about
> 70% of all debugged-program crashes, and to not show any useful info on
> about half the rest. Printf debugging was usually way faster. Or
> reproducing the bug on Linux, of course. It's become way better, but I
> still don't entirely trust that gdb.)
>
> MfG Kai