Re: Deprecate dwarf and mdebug support, delete nlm?

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-05-04T16:08:28Z

db> *All* the sequent targets (not just those in the email above) are
db> scheduled to go in 3.3.

If I recall correctly, the i*86-sequent-ptx4* configuration was
reprieved because some poeple said they were actually using it.
And then it came back onto an obsoletion list later and didn't
get reprieved. That matches what you are saying.

But that's pretty vague in my mind. I need to dive into the archives
some more.

The older configurations like i*86-sequent-ptx2* were killed.

db> If you guys want to support something because 2.95 does, feel free, but
db> realize that the gcc team (me included) will close bug reports against
db> 2.95.x where it's been fixed in a later version.

Right. Some users are stuck with gcc 2.95.3. As a gdb guy, I would
like everybody to upgrade to most recent gdb, even people who are
stuck with gcc 2.95.3.

I am in favor of obsoleting DWARF 1 support. But if we don't do it
right now, it will continue to get easier in the future. Gcc keeps
dropping the dwarf-1 configurations for us, which is cool.

db> Besides that, whether or not some non-free compiler emits DWARF 1 is
db> irrelevant to supporting DWARF 1 in gdb. We don't care about non-free
db> compilers, remember?

In general, I personally care about interoperating with non-free software
whenever it helps gdb build market share.

In this case, I think that gdb would not lose much market share,
and it's useful to kill off a whole symtab reader.

Here is the URL for one guy who has a diab compiler and wanted
to improve gdb dwarf-1 support:

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00505.html

That's the extent of interest in dwarf-1: two people in the past year
with diab compiler: this guy, and one other that I didn't dig up
the URL for yet.

Michael C