This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?

> From: Steinar Bang <>
> Date: 15 Mar 2001 19:50:03 +0100
> 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.

As others told here, this support is being actively worked on, by
Daniel as well as by others.

> It must be adressed in some way, I think.  And a fork sounds like the
> best alternative.

IMHO, a fork is _never_ a good alternative, let alone the best one.

> A fork doesn't _have_ to end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs.

How do you mean ``end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs''?  That fork is
not over yet, so how will it end is anyone's guess.

Meanwhile, we do know what it does: it caused and continues to cause a
terrible waste of resources which are in short supply, whereby two
groups of talented and well-meaning individuals work against each
other instead of working together.  With large and complicated
packages such as Emacs and GDB, a fork is a dreadful blow to the
package development.

> It could be like with egcs and gcc (ie. first a fork and then a
> merge).

This can only happen if one of the branches is unmaintained.  That
possibility doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight wrt GDB.

A fork is an ultimate acknowledgment of a failure of people to
cooperate with each other.  Can anyone seriously say that this is what
happens in GDB maintenance?  If not, I suggest that we stop even
mentioning a fork, lest someone thinks we are being serious.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]