Re: Delay the branch for E500 native support

Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-07-04T06:14:04Z

On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 12:22:37PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:40:47 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> >
> > I would really have liked for GDB 6.1 to contain inter-compilation-unit
> > reference support too. If the timing doesn't work out, it doesn't work
> > out - if the schedule holds there may even be another release this
> > year.
>
> The intercu example is not a good analogy, IMHO: it was a new feature
> that was totally absent from the codebase.
>
> Jim's situation is somewhat different: there's a half-baked port
> already in the CVS. To me, it doesn't make sense to release a new
> version with incomplete support for some platform, where work is under
> way to make it complete in a week or so.

First of all, the e500 port has been in CVS as a target port, and
continuously evolving, for a long time - since before the release of
GDB 6.1. Secondly, it will require a DWARF feature which is
genericly used by GCC on all platforms, that we currently throw up our
hands at just like we do for inter-cu referenes.

But I was not trying to compare the two; I simply picked an example out
of my mailbox. Perhaps it was a bad choice of example.

We've chosen to release GDB according to a schedule, or at least to
make an effort in that direction. I think it's a reasonable choice,
but if you don't agree then we can discuss that. But pushing dates
back for one feature at a time is not a good way to finish anything;
either we're trying for a date or we aren't.

My two cents.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz