This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?

From: Kean Johnston <jkj at sco dot com>
To: "Nathan J. Williams" <nathanw at wasabisystems dot com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>,Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>,ezannoni at redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, jimb at redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:09:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?
Organization: The SCO Group
References: <20040503155621.CF3194B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <4097B8C6.10805@gnu.org> <mtud65kjf0t.fsf@all-night-tool.mit.edu>

This seems like a poor argument. The availibility and suitability of
modern GCC for building GDB does not imply that modern GCC will be
suitable for building the application to be debugged.


I agree. I think phasing out a whole debugging format
is ill-advised. Most people dont want to keep around
multiple versions of a tool. If I need to debug an
old binary becuase the libc I replaced today is breaking
something, I think I have a reasonable expectation of
being able to do so. I think it is quite appropriate to
phase out the *generation* of said format, but not its
interpretation in a debugger.

Kean

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?
  - From: Stan Shebs
- Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?
  - From: Jim Blandy

References:
- Phasing out Dwarf 1?
  - From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain
- Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: Phasing out Dwarf 1?
  - From: Nathan J. Williams

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