This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:18:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAP9bCMRko50FiANwa+h2FadG-k6Me69N04F+Le-bUnTVLQYKuQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5411CFAE dot 7040805 at redhat dot com> <20140912115452 dot GA5626 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <5412E3AC dot 80203 at redhat dot com> <20140912123320 dot GA8704 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <5412EB1F dot 40309 at redhat dot com> <20140917201049 dot GA22880 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <541C3FCF dot 4000400 at redhat dot com> <20140920195017 dot GA5931 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
On 09/20/2014 08:50 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 09/17/2014 09:10 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>> You seem to evaluate the patches by some other metric which I cannot guess
>>> myself in advance to coding a patch.
>>
>> It's simply the metric of someone who believes that GDB is here
>> to stay, and therefore weighs impact of changes both in the present
>> and in the future.
>
> Then it is (IMO) most time effective to rewrite GDB to C++ first.
What I don't think that we should halt all development and
"rewrite" GDB to anything _first_. Instead, let that be done in
parallel. Let me remind you that I'm still on the C++ camp.
Last we discussed this, I suggested that we should have a wiki page
describing the project, summarizing previous discussions,
previously identified obstacles, proposed solutions for same,
listing a suggested conversion roadmap ("gcc -Wc++-compat" -> "still C but
built with g++", etc.), etc. That hasn't happened yet.
> But it has
> some organizational issues as the improved stability, speed and maintenance
> cost may (or may not?) be lower priority than specific fixes/improvements
> requested by users. Which leads to short time vs. long time goals.
> I also can't forget to mention there is also LLDB.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree.
>
> We therefore both agree on our disagreement.
TBC, what I don't agree with is the view that anything other
than converting to C++ first is wrong:
"Any fix present on gdb-patches is _wrong_
as it is not written in an effective/maintainable language"
(emphasis above is mine.)
Thanks,
Pedro Alves