From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id lr3NE3SbymNm/BsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:47:32 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 472AE1E128; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:47:32 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=RoMlfceG; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CED121E0D3 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99923385B509 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:47:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 99923385B509 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1674222450; bh=Gs+cLmAMsrHlcA4oN29FpB6ek68NVWjOsOAS69ZjXv0=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=RoMlfceG+/TiRVXaha5AYi0kzMIukocjMHJ7fehsSVK//olaRsMycFjgCZ6w1W20J D9NJVJc60tG+hL7HRgOoK4S8JuHxgsTXZHp1XSh7LsCw7IL/fLE18PlmDcU9zvt/JA sbbW4AoKo/hbHDzXEXz7jCRSxBUpeWHQQJ/o3Utg= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB7133858D1E for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:47:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org CB7133858D1E Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIrjZ-0008TL-Cx; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:47:09 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIrjU-0002DS-9j; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:47:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:47:04 +0200 Message-Id: <83y1pxmi7b.fsf@gnu.org> To: Mark Wielaard Cc: tom@tromey.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Mark Wielaard on Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:48:27 +0100) Subject: Re: [RFC] Deprecate stabs References: <20230119174156.654402-1-tom@tromey.com> <83r0vqo15g.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Mark Wielaard > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:48:27 +0100 > > On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 20:00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Tom Tromey > > > Cc: Tom Tromey > > > Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:41:56 -0700 > > > > > > I think it's time to deprecate stabs, and plan to remove all support > > > for them.  Stabs are long since obsolete and are not really maintained > > > in gdb.  GCC deprecated them in 12 and will remove them as well. > > > > IMO, we should remove support for stabs _after_ GCC, not before and > > not together with it.  Not sure if "GDB 15" fits that. > > stabs support was deprecated in GCC 12 [1] and has been removed in GCC > 13 [2], which is in pre-release state (stage 4) now. So the above plan > actually trails GCC by two releases. So I would actually recommend > adding a deprecation notice in GDB 13 and removal in GDB 14. I see no reason to rush with removal of features. Someone could still be using them. And users don't necessarily upgrade to the latest version of GCC as soon as it is released, they could go on using an older version for some years. We should be friendlier to our users than MS and Google.