<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Is there a reason that an ancient version of GDB is in use for ltib ? in i.MX Processors</title>
    <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312132#M40862</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently we are having some issues with GDB while trying to debug some C++ code. We have tracked this to a bug in GDB 6. GDB 6.6 is an ancient version. Are there known problematic issues with a more modern (say within the last 5 years) version of GDB that prevents it from being used ? If someone has used a more modern GDB version, should it be possible to simply port and add it as an ltib package ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:23:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mattcompton</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-04-07T21:23:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Is there a reason that an ancient version of GDB is in use for ltib ?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312132#M40862</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently we are having some issues with GDB while trying to debug some C++ code. We have tracked this to a bug in GDB 6. GDB 6.6 is an ancient version. Are there known problematic issues with a more modern (say within the last 5 years) version of GDB that prevents it from being used ? If someone has used a more modern GDB version, should it be possible to simply port and add it as an ltib package ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:23:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312132#M40862</guid>
      <dc:creator>mattcompton</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-07T21:23:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is there a reason that an ancient version of GDB is in use for ltib ?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312133#M40863</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't think there is a reason other than "nobody did it." I have ported and used GDB 7.2 to LTIB before. It's actually fairly trivial. I can't find my old spec file though.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:32:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312133#M40863</guid>
      <dc:creator>KursadOney</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-07T22:32:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is there a reason that an ancient version of GDB is in use for ltib ?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312134#M40864</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Matt,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kursad have give you reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this can help you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:20:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/i-MX-Processors/Is-there-a-reason-that-an-ancient-version-of-GDB-is-in-use-for/m-p/312134#M40864</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rita_Wang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-10-14T07:20:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

