From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19958 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2014 19:50:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19948 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2014 19:50:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:50:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8KJoLWP013283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:50:21 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-67.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.67]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8KJoIvl005530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:50:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:50:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Doug Evans , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? Message-ID: <20140920195017.GA5931@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <5411CFAE.7040805@redhat.com> <20140912115452.GA5626@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5412E3AC.80203@redhat.com> <20140912123320.GA8704@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5412EB1F.40309@redhat.com> <20140917201049.GA22880@host2.jankratochvil.net> <541C3FCF.4000400@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <541C3FCF.4000400@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 09/17/2014 09:10 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > You seem to evaluate the patches by some other metric which I cannot guess > > myself in advance to coding a patch. > > It's simply the metric of someone who believes that GDB is here > to stay, and therefore weighs impact of changes both in the present > and in the future. Then it is (IMO) most time effective to rewrite GDB to C++ first. But it has some organizational issues as the improved stability, speed and maintenance cost may (or may not?) be lower priority than specific fixes/improvements requested by users. Which leads to short time vs. long time goals. I also can't forget to mention there is also LLDB. On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:07 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > Perhaps not surprisingly, I disagree. We therefore both agree on our disagreement. Jan