Re: RFA: ia64 portion of libunwind patch

[Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:53:33PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> 
>   >> Is allocating a scratch buffer in gdb really such a big issue?
>   >> It's very late for proposing libunwind API changes.
> 
>   Marcel> I think it's very early to have it nailed down.
> 
> No, the static code part of libunwind is not really open to
> non-backwards-compatible changes anymore.

Changing the API and breaking backward compatibility are two different
things. I guess you specifically meant non-backward-compatible API
changes when you only said API changes. That wasn't obvious though...

	...
>   Marcel> developers (yes, you David :-) remain sensitive and open
>   Marcel> minded about the how well libunwind interfaces with or
>   Marcel> integrates into code that has a need for unwinding.

	...
> Perhaps we can find a backwards-compatible way of doing this, in which
> case it's _much_ easier to add the feature.

This is pretty much what I mean with open-minded. Discussing how a
different libunwind API fits gdb better does not mean that the
libunwind API should be changed.  It's part of exploring how well
(or not) libunwind fits the gdb paradigm and vice versa and what
it takes to make it fit better if there's such a need. This, for
all I care, can be purely academic.

Heck, maybe libunwind2 can benefit from it :-)

Anyway: point cleared up. Let's move on.

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel@xcllnt.net