From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25901 invoked by alias); 10 May 2003 09:25:29 -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 25789 invoked from network); 10 May 2003 09:25:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 May 2003 09:25:25 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (cable-130-147.inter.net.il [213.8.130.147]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AOH52014; Sat, 10 May 2003 12:24:35 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 09:25:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@redhat.com Message-Id: <2110-Sat10May2003122057+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: mec@shout.net, jkj@sco.com, eflash@gmx.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3EBBDBF3.6030607@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 09 May 2003 12:48:51 -0400) Subject: Re: Deprecate dwarf and mdebug support, delete nlm? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200305091546.h49FkoT6009775@duracef.shout.net> <3EBBDBF3.6030607@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 12:48:51 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > mec> Are there still a lot of SCO users with gcc 2? > > kj> HUGE numbers. It's the currently "officially supported" version > > kj> that we give our customers. Until 3.3 we haven't really felt GCC > > kj> 3 was ready for primetime. In fact the next "oficially supported" > > kj> version will be 3.4. > > > Okay, that means we have to keep dwarf 1 for another 6-12 months > > at least. Rats. > > I don't know .... My vote is to retain DWARF 1 until SCO switches to GCC 3.x as their official version. I think otherwise we would be unfairly punishing SCO users. I agree with Kean that a solid compiler is much more important that a debugger, so most users will not upgrade GCC just because GDB wants them to. OTOH, those SCO users who do use GDB should be able to benefit from the new GDB features. > Yes. There is no such thing as free beer. Someone, eventually, ends up > paying for it. Let's ask the SCO developers to pay at least part of that price. In fact, Kean already volunteered, so that issue appears to be taken care of. > This has come up before. The GDB 4 to 5 transition occured due to a > switch to ISO C. People with a K&R compiler needing to either download > GCC, or GDB 4.x. That's a totally different beer ;-) The compiler used to build GDB is not teh same as the compiler used to build production software. One could install a newer GCC, compile GDB, and then use the older GCC for development. Or one could download binary packages of GDB someone else built. It's much easier to solve this kind of problems than the one SCO users will face if we drop DWARF 1 now.