Re: Forgot to note

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>]

DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> writes:

> > It's arguably a *lot* simpler to change those platforms to dwarf2,
> > then to support new-abi/stabs *and* old-abi/stabs at the same time.
> 
> OK, I'll let you change DJGPP's built-in crash analyzer program, which
> only understands stabs, and the mini-debuggers (edebug32, fsdb) and
> IDE (rhide), which also only understand stabs.  No, they don't use
> BFD. 

Do they have the cruft necessary to properly debug C++ stabs programs?
If not, then you could keep stabs for DJGPP without any problems.
Does C++ debugging with GDB work on djgpp (I've never seen test
results for the C++ tests)? If not, it's not an issue for djgpp.

> No, gdb isn't an option to replace those. 
 I wouldn't imply it is.  
> Oh, and the different
> parts of DJGPP are released asynchronously, so you'll have to fix
> those long before you remove support in gcc, so we have a chance to
> run through a release cycle (we release every few years) and get these
> updates to users before the new gcc comes out.
> 

> Not that I object to moving djgpp to dwarf2 (people hate stabs/C++
> debugging) but there's a lot of other things that have to change in
> conjunction with changing the compiler.

I realize this, but i'm trying to avoid adding a whole bunch of hair
to gdb, and at the same time, further a gcc goal.
It's apparent i won't be able to avoid adding that hair.
It's also unfortunate,  but necessary.
--Dan