From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3415 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2003 20:37:04 -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 3397 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2003 20:37:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2003 20:37:03 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA4Kb3M01372 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hA4Kb3627739 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hA4Kb1Jm021607; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:37:01 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hA4Kaun22586; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:36:56 -0700 Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:37:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031104203655.ZM22585@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Elena Zannoni "Re: [rfa:symtab] Delete stabs live range splitting support" (Nov 4, 3:25pm) References: <3FA7F2CA.8070403@redhat.com> <1031104201430.ZM22436@localhost.localdomain> <16296.2863.534858.73078@localhost.redhat.com> To: Elena Zannoni , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [rfa:symtab] Delete stabs live range splitting support Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On Nov 4, 3:25pm, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Kevin Buettner writes: > > On Nov 4, 1:41pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > GCC never officially supported it, and its bloating each symbol by ~20%. > > > > > > Tested on PPC NetBSD which is still using stabs. > > > > Does anyone know which ports this code originally benefited? Does any > > existing port still use it? (A brief inspection of the ChangeLog files > > hasn't turned up anything useful.) > > > > Kevin > > groundhog day?? (the movie) Somebody pinch me. > > See the thread at: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-06/msg00189.html which refers to > another thread, which refers to another thread, which refers to > another thread...... Thanks for the link. Based on that discussion from over a year ago, it seems like it should've been killed off then, but wasn't for some reason. > Yes kill it! Now! Sounds like an approval to me... Kevin