From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32523 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2007 19:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 32515 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2007 19:32:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:32:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2227198305; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:32:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA70982FD; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:32:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I2uHf-0001gf-4A; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:31:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: jimb@codesourcery.com, eager@eagercon.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What's an annex? stratum? Message-ID: <20070625193135.GA6391@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , jimb@codesourcery.com, eager@eagercon.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <467D5FEF.7010900@eagercon.com> <467D6D1F.7090507@earthlink.net> <467D6FB8.4080909@eagercon.com> <468009EA.4040504@eagercon.com> <18048.5444.903092.843811@pkoning.equallogic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18048.5444.903092.843811@pkoning.equallogic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 03:19:32PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > That's really unfortunate. Comments in code are useful but they are > no substitute for properly written internals documentation. > > By contrast, the internals documentation of GCC seems to be pretty > helpful and reasonably up to date. You may have noticed that GCC has approximately ten times as many active contributors. Maybe twenty. It is not twenty times as complex. There is no feasible way for the GDB contributors to even respond to all the incoming bug reports; maintaining internals documentation of the quality of GCC's would probably require two contributors' full time effort. Do you see two spare contributors? If you do, let me know, please. > For example: Bug #186 has been troubling us on and off for a long > time. I would like to fix it. But given that this involves going off > into the deep jungle of the GDB symbol and type machinery, and the > fact that there is no useable documentation for this stuff, I haven't > been able to do this. It's really not as inscrutable as you make it sound, and there are plenty of people willing to answer questions. Especially for people who are interested in fixing bugs and/or improving the documentation. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery