From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5479 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2002 18:57:34 -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 5471 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2002 18:57:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2002 18:57:31 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2D63D37; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:57:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D88CC99.8010803@ges.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:57:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: Adam Fedor , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Objective-C language support. References: <3D889A97.90202@doc.com> <3D88BCD1.5379F383@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00412.txt.bz2 > Adam Fedor wrote: > >> >> This patch adds Objective-C language support to gdb based upon a patch >> provided by Apple Computer Inc from their version of gdb. Note that the >> patch only contains changes to existing files. New files (objc-lang.h, >> objc-lang.c, objc-exp.y) and a gdb.objc testsuite directory are located at >> >> ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/gnustep/contrib/gdb-objc-patch.tar.gz >> > > > > Oh lord. I suppose I am the only one here who is > even noddingly familiar with Objective C? > > There's a good chance that I wrote some of this code > anyway, so I'll try to have a look at it. You know, > of course, that we can't just drop something this huge > into the source tree without some review... > > I'll need the ability to run the tests. Does GCC already > have enough objc to compile them? Will I need any special > libraries? For Ada, a different approach has been taken: - commit the new files (but not changes to old files) - commit the makefile rules for the new files (but not changes that would cause these files to build by default) - clean the files up so that they meet current coding conventions - -Werror, ARI, ... (for Ada the files were all K&R, looking back.) - slowly contribute/merge the patches to other files - add the missing makefile bits making it part of GDB This way, the bulk of the code is in the mainline. I think it works better since: - people can see the code (there have already been several patches go through where the Ada code was ``fixed'' for free, just by virtue of being part of the repository). - while being developed, doesn't break the existing builds With this, the worst that can happen is the code never gets enabled. The other thing is that, very like when someone adds new a architecture, other than the contributor, no one immediatly cares if it doesn't work quite right. Just as long as it hasn't actually broken other parts of GDB and hasn't hasn't done anything really really nasty at the implementation level (ari and -Werror cover most of that). enjoy, Andrew