This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Jim Ingham writes:Elena,
On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a while.
There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
Are you referring to something else?
Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of Adam's work. Since the
tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF site, he naturally
started from there. But since they had been sitting for a while, the
first task he faced was reconciling the changes in the relevant areas
of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources between the time the
tarball was dropped and when he got it. At that time, we were keeping
pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done this job already -
and the results were readily available in our CVS repository. IIRC, we
figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set him straight, but
that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort that it would be
good to avoid.
I see. Are you still taking the fsf changes on a regular basis? I believe that having a source drop represents also kind of a formal handoff, a sign that Apple was willingly giving some code back to the community, and at least go through the motions, but maybe that's just me.
Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I merged.
I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS repository, at least that is
what I urged him to do. By the time you & Andrew got to it, I think
the work was pretty far along, so you probably didn't have any need to
refer to our version.
Yes we worked from the Apple CVS repo. I remember it was quite cumbersome to get to it though, and I forgot the URL.
I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball. If it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live with the status quo.
It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to be counter-productive. That was what we "went through before" and the event somewhat justified my concerns.
Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier, and we even have anonymous access now for those who don't want to give out their e-mail addresses... Plus then they have all the benefits of CVS in trying to figure out why we did all the screwy things we did...
... the pointer is?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |