From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11571 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2009 16:34:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 11561 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2009 16:34:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_54 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:34:01 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964D9B0060; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n7VGXxYt013023; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:33:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:38:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Jonas Maebe Cc: Tristan Gingold , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb cvs vs x86_64-apple-darwin10 Message-ID: <20090831163358.GA12873@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <20090830202035.GA2791@bromo.med.uc.edu> <87612A64-948A-408C-B0CD-FCCED70C1309@adacore.com> <20090831132221.GC10965@bromo.med.uc.edu> <7BDB0E6F-A184-4161-BA70-99353F83B3EF@elis.ugent.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7BDB0E6F-A184-4161-BA70-99353F83B3EF@elis.ugent.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 03:29:11PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2009, at 15:22, Jack Howarth wrote: > >> Getting x86_64-apple-darwin10 working should be a higher priority >> for gdb 7.0 since it sounds like after the VTA branch merge into gcc >> 4.5, we will need to have access to gdb 7.0 to debug code generated >> with gcc 4.5 on darwin > > Do you think Apple will ever ship anything >gcc 4.2 on Mac OS X? As far > as I can tell, they are trying to move completely to Clang+LLVM. > > Of course, maybe you build your own gcc (and AdaCore most certainly does > build its own gcc). > > > Jonas Jonas, No. I strongly doubt Apple will ever ship a gcc > 4.2.1 due to a combination of their objections to GPLv3 and their preception that gcc has been treading water in terms of improvements. As the FSF gcc developers are fond of saying, it's hard to make the elephant dance so Apple wanted to start with a more modern code base and design with clang/llvm. FYI, I maintain the gcc packages for fink and so far we have had pretty good luck with FSF gcc maintaining quality... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg01866.html although there will be forks coming like with LTO. Apple wants to use a different approach for implementing LTO than FSF gcc does. I was told by the llvm folks... > The FSF is designing their LTO to not need linker integration. This > will present a whole host of problems for them, but they are insistent > on it. :) I am unclear if the FSF design could be adapted for darwin without Apple's participation on the linker side. Jack