From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14512 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 04:39:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14477 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 04:39:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 04:39:12 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.143.55]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DVD63359 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:39:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:39:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Michael Chastain Message-ID: <01c4b595$Blat.v2.2.2$2312b680@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: dan@debian.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <417423FA.nailP2L12S6AW@mindspring.com> (message from Michael Chastain on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:13:46 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfc/NEWS] GDB works with GCC -feliminate-dwarf2-dups. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4172B5F4.nailMEV1154GO@mindspring.com> <20041017183143.GA22628@nevyn.them.org> <4172BF74.nailMK41WRWF5@mindspring.com> <20041017191337.GA23601@nevyn.them.org> <4172D1FF.nailMO5211TI7@mindspring.com> <01c4b4cf$Blat.v2.2.2$1a0e6f00@zahav.net.il> <417423FA.nailP2L12S6AW@mindspring.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00312.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:13:46 -0400 > From: Michael Chastain > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > It's like this. When gdb and gcc don't work together, I have to decide > whether I think it's a bug in gdb (so I file a gdb PR) or a bug in gcc > (so I file a gcc PR). Some contemplation of this relationship leads > me to say: gdb and gcc are truly separate entities. It's not that > "gdb X works with gcc Y", it's more exactly "gdb X and gcc Y both > support standards Z1, Z2, and Z3". IMHO, these considerations don't matter when a NEWS entry is being considered. What matters then is that something which didn't work before works now. > eli> GDB can now debug programs compiled with the -feliminate-dwarf2-dups > eli> option to GCC 3.3.4 or later, as well as programs compiled with > eli> proprietary compilers that produce similar debug information (a more > eli> compact representation of DWARF-2 debug information using the > eli> DW_FORM_ref_addr references). > > Well, after fooling with this a little bit, I like my version better. > I'm comfortable claiming that GDB supports DW_FORM_ref_addr, so that if > a compiler produces this information, GDB can support it. I'm not > comfortable claiming that GDB can support "programs compiled with > proprietary compilers that produce similar debug information". I won't start a dispute out of a 5-liner, so go ahead and commit your version. However, at the very least replace "commercial" with "proprietary". This is a distinction the FSF asks us to make (there's nothing to prevent a free software project from going commercial as long at is stays GPL-compliant).