From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: DJ Delorie Cc: meissner@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Forgot to note Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:51:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20001010211904.49719@cse.cygnus.com> <200010111652.MAA12141@envy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-10/msg00070.html DJ Delorie 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