debugging for egcs

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 199802230913.EAA03831@aura.saic1.com >you write:
  >   the only gdb news group I have seen is gnu.gdb.bug, and that has been
  > *very* dead (6 posts in the last 4 weeks).  The only announcement like thing
  > I've seen was a post to this list a few weeks back:
Most of the traffic these days is on the patches and testers mailing
lists.   Here's some info on them:

  We've just created some new mailing lists, we'll be putting a GDB web
  page together, and all of the mailing lists are now archived on the web
  (with hypermail).  If you've seen the EGCS setup, none of this will be
  a surprise.

  The current GDB mailing lists are

     gdb
     gdb-announce     moderated announcements only
     gdb-bugs
     gdb-patches
     gdb-testers

  All have open subscription policies, you can subscribe to them by sending
  a note to majordomo@cygnus.com with the usual 'subscribe $list-name'
  message.  You can subscribe to multiple lists in a single message to
  majordomo.

  The mailing lists are all archived at http://www.cygnus.com/ml/$list-name .
  Things are a little rough right now, please be patient if something
  doesn't work right.

  > > GDB moved up its planned release just to address the EGCS bug reports.
  > 
  >   uhmm... are any GNU projects really planned?
Some aspects of GNU projects are planned....


  >   I thought it was GNU policy *not* to announce release dates... by not
  > announcing they one doesn't need to plan.  How can one "move up" something 
  > that wasn't scheduled in the first place?  Some utilities have been 
  > in the 'expecting to release a new version any day now' for years.  =)
Well, the gdb team probably has some kind of rough schedule that they'd
like to follow for a release, much like egcs, binutils and many other
tools have.  Those dates (of course) aren't set in stone.

  >   gdb 4.16 came out in Apr of 1996.
  >   gcc 2.7.2 came out in Nov of 1995.
  >   gcc 2.8.0 came out on Jan of 1998.
gdb and gcc are managed by two completely different groups.

The reason behind the lag time in gdb releases is not many folks
have been asking for a new release.  That kind of changed when egcs
going...

  > ps: 
  >   if you didn't follow the GNU mailing lists you might have thought the 
  > gcc development had stagnated by 1997... two years and no release?!?
  >   i _am_ ignoring the three patches for 2.7.2...
IMHO gcc development had stagnated by late 1996 or even earlier due
to the 6 month+ code freeze that was in effect for gcc-2.7*.
Others may or may not share that opinion.

jeff