From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12459 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2004 06:14:04 -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 12450 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2004 06:14:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jul 2004 06:14:03 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bh0G7-0006jU-5B; Sun, 04 Jul 2004 02:13:51 -0400 Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 06:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jimb@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Delay the branch for E500 native support Message-ID: <20040704061351.GA25802@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , jimb@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040702224047.GA21295@nevyn.them.org> <7137-Sat03Jul2004122237+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7137-Sat03Jul2004122237+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 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 > > > > 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