This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:22:36 -0500
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200103131956.f2DJuCT31263@fillmore.constant.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20010314132500.D6148@disaster.jaj.com>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:25:00PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
>I agree with Benjamin here: if they won't approve on a timely basis,
>and won't give you maintainer authority, then fork and do it the Right
Daniel is the C++ maintainer for gdb. The problem is that some of the
changes required to fix C++ handling touch on other code like the symbol
table parts of gdb.
I won't go into great details about why there were problems with patch
acceptance but suffice it to say that not all of the problems were due
to the fact that GDB patch approval is (arguably) slow.
So, before anyone draws conclusions on the GDB patch approval process,
please read the gdb and gdb-patches mailing list archives.
>That's great. Well, it's not great that you're frustrated, but that
>you're rewriting it. With years of stuff purged, someday I might be
>able to understand the debugger. :-)
I have Cc'ed the gdb mailing list. If you all have complaints about
gdb, it makes sense to talk about them there.