Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?

Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-20T19:50:26Z

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