From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15866 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2014 11:18:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15856 invoked by uid 89); 23 Sep 2014 11:18:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:18:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8NBIQNj001331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:18:26 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8NBIOCu019653; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:18:25 -0400 Message-ID: <54215700.30402@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:18:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Doug Evans , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? References: <5411CFAE.7040805@redhat.com> <20140912115452.GA5626@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5412E3AC.80203@redhat.com> <20140912123320.GA8704@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5412EB1F.40309@redhat.com> <20140917201049.GA22880@host2.jankratochvil.net> <541C3FCF.4000400@redhat.com> <20140920195017.GA5931@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20140920195017.GA5931@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00676.txt.bz2 On 09/20/2014 08:50 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 09/17/2014 09:10 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >>> You seem to evaluate the patches by some other metric which I cannot guess >>> myself in advance to coding a patch. >> >> It's simply the metric of someone who believes that GDB is here >> to stay, and therefore weighs impact of changes both in the present >> and in the future. > > Then it is (IMO) most time effective to rewrite GDB to C++ first. What I don't think that we should halt all development and "rewrite" GDB to anything _first_. Instead, let that be done in parallel. Let me remind you that I'm still on the C++ camp. Last we discussed this, I suggested that we should have a wiki page describing the project, summarizing previous discussions, previously identified obstacles, proposed solutions for same, listing a suggested conversion roadmap ("gcc -Wc++-compat" -> "still C but built with g++", etc.), etc. That hasn't happened yet. > But it has > some organizational issues as the improved stability, speed and maintenance > cost may (or may not?) be lower priority than specific fixes/improvements > requested by users. Which leads to short time vs. long time goals. > I also can't forget to mention there is also LLDB. > > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree. > > We therefore both agree on our disagreement. TBC, what I don't agree with is the view that anything other than converting to C++ first is wrong: "Any fix present on gdb-patches is _wrong_ as it is not written in an effective/maintainable language" (emphasis above is mine.) Thanks, Pedro Alves