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: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves 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: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:50:17 +0200
- 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>
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. 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.
Jan