This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <email@example.com>:
> FWIW, I always had the GDB patches I posted as an RFA approved or
> commented on in reasonable time (i.e. about a week).
> In any case, a fork is not something people should consider easily,
> just because someone's patch is not accepted quickly enough.
But the lack of C++ support for gcc 3.0 is a problem.
And it will become a _huge_ problem when gcc 3.0 is released.
It must be adressed in some way, I think. And a fork sounds like the
In a fork like this, one doesn't have to take into consideration
support for other languages in the common code. Once the fork is
actually working for C++ in gcc 3.0, one can look into what changes
needs to be made in the common part of gdb, and argue for them, and
possibly work towards merging the new C++ support into the mainstream.
A fork doesn't _have_ to end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs. It could
be like with egcs and gcc (ie. first a fork and then a merge).