This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: C/C++ preprocessor macro support for GDB
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at dberlin dot org>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:31:21 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: C/C++ preprocessor macro support for GDB
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 03:05:59AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > I *really* don't see why Jim went to all the trouble, since it would
> > > probably have taken less than half a week to add the necessary
> > > changes to libcpp.
> >
> > This level of opprobrium is not constructive.
And am I the only one who had to look up the work opprobrium?
If you think i've got some amount of "contempt" or "reproach", in this
case, you would be
right.
This was a discussion that didn't just take place on the gcc list.
It took place on gdb's as well, last june.
You'll note I had already hooked up cpplib at that point.
You'll also note he wanted cpplib's expansion code decoupled, and I
explained this was going to happen (since we had the gcc discussion at
that point), and I was told it wasn't necessary.
In other words, we've been through this before, with the exact same
people and issues.
And as Stan Shebs pointed out back then, one of the purposes of cpplib was
to be able to be reused by gdb.
So your right that i've got a bit of contempt when we go through it all
again, when it could have been avoided by simply communicating.
--Dan