From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15592 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 15:34:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15557 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 15:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.ut.caldera.com) (216.250.130.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 15:34:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28870 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 15:34:24 -0000 Received: from vms.caldera.com (216.250.130.31) by mail.ut.caldera.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 15:34:24 -0000 Received: from vms.caldera.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0DBA006; Fri, 9 May 2003 09:34:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from shrike (shrike.pdev.ca.caldera.com [132.147.65.3]) by vms.caldera.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259B2A004; Fri, 9 May 2003 09:34:22 -0600 (MDT) From: "Kean Johnston" To: "'Michael Elizabeth Chastain'" , , Cc: Subject: RE: Deprecate dwarf and mdebug support, delete nlm? Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:34:00 -0000 Organization: The SCO Group Message-ID: <027301c3163e$fc3ff820$03419384@shrike> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <200305091522.h49FMf8c009379@duracef.shout.net> Importance: Normal X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 > The SCO target is i[34567]86-*-sco3.2v5*. > > With gcc 2.95.3, this target prefers DWARF 1 or SDB. > > With gcc 3.2.2, this target prefers DWARF 2 or SDB. > (see config.gcc and config/i386/sco5.h in the source). Yeah I know I'm the maintainer :) > Are there still a lot of SCO users with gcc 2? HUGE numbers. It's the currently "officially supported" version that we give our customers. Until 3.3 we haven't really felt GCC 3 was ready for primetime. In fact the next "oficially supported" version will be 3.4. > If there are, is it reasonable to require them to upgrade to gcc 3 > when they upgrade their gdb? Not really. For one, more people compile than debug (sad but true) so it is much more critical that the compiler works, and once people have a stable, working compiler they are VERY loathsome to switch. But a debugger is considered more of a utility tool and people are more prone to update it (and to be frank, as the integrator of our 'GNU tools' package I am more likely to WANT to update it). There are other good improvements in GDB that even current consumers can benefit from. Aside from that ... just as a general guiding light, a debugger shouldn't be target to a compiler, that's bad practice. It should take advantage of features of the compiler if it can but it should be VERY forgiving of things like debug formats (ie support as many as it can), calling conventions etc. Kean