Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:53:54 -0500
> >
> > You == very bad troll.
>
> Kindly stop this kind of ``reasoning'' here.
> It hurts the discussions
> by making them a childish exchange of ``did not'', ``did, too'' type
> of arguments.

Andrew continually claimed provably untrue things that could do nothing 
but piss off people involved in the hard work that went on in the gcc 
tree-ssa branch (schedule slippage, too many resources consumed, etc)
It did, in fact, do just that, and i'm not referring to me, even though 
i did work on that branch. There was absolutely no reason for doing 
this other than to piss off people, since they were, as i said, 
provably untrue.
This is generally known as trolling.
This is why i replied.
Because others are too kind to call Andrew on some of the bullshit he 
spews.
I am not so kind.
If GDB actually had a real steering committee, i would seriously 
recommend that they reprimand him publicly for those comments (which 
GCC's steering committee has done for certain people in the past).
It's crap like that that strains relationships between GCC and GDB.
For a head maintainer, he should be being more careful about what he 
says.
> This issue is too serious for us to allow ourselves to
> do that.
I'm seriously concerned that if he thinks the tree-ssa branch is 
somehow an example of a bad development plan, that gdb development is 
going down the wrong path.
I'm also seriously concerned that if he somehow thinks DW_OP_piece 
support is more important than the intercu-branch, that he is also 
going down the wrong path.  GCC has emitted DW_OP_piece for a while. 
GCC has been able to emit inter-cu references for a while. Every user 
i've talked with is much more concerned with being able to reduce the 
size of their debugging info, which requires intercu support, than they 
are with debugging some variable that uses DW_OP_piece.
They've learned to work around DW_OP_piece issues through various 
hacks, but large debugging info and high memory usage prevents some of 
them from debugging at *all*.

But again, i'll just unsubscribe from gdb.
I came back after i was asked by various people to do so.
I won't make such a mistake again.

--Dan