From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7660 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 16:25:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7652 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 16:25:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 16:25:44 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AwOKR-00088S-Sa; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:25:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Berlin , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references Message-ID: <20040226162539.GA30921@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Berlin , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com References: <1C4B9E16-67AD-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CD4D6.3000100@gnu.org> <1037DDEA-67B5-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CEE5C.5080100@gnu.org> <20040226150526.GB13921@nevyn.them.org> <16446.7027.398485.643190@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16446.7027.398485.643190@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:14:43AM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > Both of the distributions I maintain GDB for (one for my employer, and > > Debian) are facing problems with the size and load time of debug > > information. For them, the intercu branch is both more useful and more > > urgent. Whether or not it makes GDB 6.1 through the gdb-patches review > > process, the GDB 6.1 packages for both of those distributions will > > include it. > > I don't feel comfortable including it in FSF gdb6.1. One strong > reason is that there has been no design review (as opposed to > tree-ssa). If those distros give you more latitude (i.e. no review > process, availability of 'unstable and 'stable' versions, etc), it is > not a good reason for FSF to do the same. I am not saying no a > priori. It's just unfortunate timing. OK, this is perfectly reasonable. It's a lot of new code. The design is actually - I can't really say based on - but pretty much follows suggestions given to me by Jim Blandy last year. There was definitely no design review of this code; that's because I just sat down and did it. The design is part of what I have to ask the maintainers of the dwarf2 reader to review. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer