From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25498 invoked by alias); 4 May 2003 16:08:28 -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 25491 invoked from network); 4 May 2003 16:08:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 May 2003 16:08:28 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h44G8QO6013706; Sun, 4 May 2003 11:08:26 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h44G8Q16012288; Sun, 4 May 2003 11:08:26 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h44G8PwG012287; Sun, 4 May 2003 12:08:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 16:08:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200305041608.h44G8PwG012287@duracef.shout.net> To: dberlin@dberlin.org Subject: Re: Deprecate dwarf and mdebug support, delete nlm? Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00040.txt.bz2 db> *All* the sequent targets (not just those in the email above) are db> scheduled to go in 3.3. If I recall correctly, the i*86-sequent-ptx4* configuration was reprieved because some poeple said they were actually using it. And then it came back onto an obsoletion list later and didn't get reprieved. That matches what you are saying. But that's pretty vague in my mind. I need to dive into the archives some more. The older configurations like i*86-sequent-ptx2* were killed. db> If you guys want to support something because 2.95 does, feel free, but db> realize that the gcc team (me included) will close bug reports against db> 2.95.x where it's been fixed in a later version. Right. Some users are stuck with gcc 2.95.3. As a gdb guy, I would like everybody to upgrade to most recent gdb, even people who are stuck with gcc 2.95.3. I am in favor of obsoleting DWARF 1 support. But if we don't do it right now, it will continue to get easier in the future. Gcc keeps dropping the dwarf-1 configurations for us, which is cool. db> Besides that, whether or not some non-free compiler emits DWARF 1 is db> irrelevant to supporting DWARF 1 in gdb. We don't care about non-free db> compilers, remember? In general, I personally care about interoperating with non-free software whenever it helps gdb build market share. In this case, I think that gdb would not lose much market share, and it's useful to kill off a whole symtab reader. Here is the URL for one guy who has a diab compiler and wanted to improve gdb dwarf-1 support: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00505.html That's the extent of interest in dwarf-1: two people in the past year with diab compiler: this guy, and one other that I didn't dig up the URL for yet. Michael C