From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: sb@metis.no Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:59:00 -0000 Message-id: <200103161054.FAA15765@indy.delorie.com> References: <200103131956.f2DJuCT31263@fillmore.constant.com> <20010314132500.D6148@disaster.jaj.com> <20010314212236.A28674@redhat.com> <200103150907.EAA27838@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00147.html > From: Steinar Bang > Date: 15 Mar 2001 19:50:03 +0100 > > But the lack of C++ support for gcc 3.0 is a problem. > And it will become a _huge_ problem when gcc 3.0 is released. As others told here, this support is being actively worked on, by Daniel as well as by others. > It must be adressed in some way, I think. And a fork sounds like the > best alternative. IMHO, a fork is _never_ a good alternative, let alone the best one. > A fork doesn't _have_ to end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs. How do you mean ``end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs''? That fork is not over yet, so how will it end is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, we do know what it does: it caused and continues to cause a terrible waste of resources which are in short supply, whereby two groups of talented and well-meaning individuals work against each other instead of working together. With large and complicated packages such as Emacs and GDB, a fork is a dreadful blow to the package development. > It could be like with egcs and gcc (ie. first a fork and then a > merge). This can only happen if one of the branches is unmaintained. That possibility doesn't seem to be anywhere in sight wrt GDB. A fork is an ultimate acknowledgment of a failure of people to cooperate with each other. Can anyone seriously say that this is what happens in GDB maintenance? If not, I suggest that we stop even mentioning a fork, lest someone thinks we are being serious.