From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30994 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2002 13:32:28 -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 30861 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 13:32:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 13:32:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2IDVLm22866; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:31:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Zack Weinberg cc: Neil Booth , Jim Blandy , , Subject: Re: RFC: C/C++ preprocessor macro support for GDB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 03:05:59AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > I *really* don't see why Jim went to all the trouble, since it would > > > probably have taken less than half a week to add the necessary > > > changes to libcpp. > > > > This level of opprobrium is not constructive. And am I the only one who had to look up the work opprobrium? If you think i've got some amount of "contempt" or "reproach", in this case, you would be right. This was a discussion that didn't just take place on the gcc list. It took place on gdb's as well, last june. You'll note I had already hooked up cpplib at that point. You'll also note he wanted cpplib's expansion code decoupled, and I explained this was going to happen (since we had the gcc discussion at that point), and I was told it wasn't necessary. In other words, we've been through this before, with the exact same people and issues. And as Stan Shebs pointed out back then, one of the purposes of cpplib was to be able to be reused by gdb. So your right that i've got a bit of contempt when we go through it all again, when it could have been avoided by simply communicating. --Dan