From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31545 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 02:23:47 -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 31536 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 02:23:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 02:23:47 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C932B92; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:23:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <403C0730.3000706@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:23:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references References: <20040221200814.GA28652@nevyn.them.org> <20040225001850.GA24036@nevyn.them.org> <403BEDC3.3040704@gnu.org> <20040225012902.GA11745@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040225012902.GA11745@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 [I dropped the nameless r6k, they bounced my e-mail] > On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:35:15PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >I will start submitting preliminary patches, those which can also act >>>> >as bug-fixes or optimizations to the current dwarf2 code, tonight or >>>> >tomorrow. Merging the branch may have to wait until after GDB 6.1. >>>> >Personally, I'd love for it to be included, since the sooner we release >>>> >a GDB that can understand this data the sooner GCC can emit it by >>>> >default; but I want at least some more testing on the branch before >>>> >I suggest that. My timing for this project was somewhat unfortunate. >> >>> >>> Er, given that GCC 3.4 branch is emiting DW_OP_piece, isn't that more >>> urgent? > > > Probably. As I said, I try to do large projects roughly FIFO, and this > has been on my TODO list a lot longer than DW_OP_piece has. > If you're interested in DW_OP_piece support for 6.1, I can certainly > look into it after this is done. It will probably be less work. I > don't want to try to juggle two large dwarf2 projects at the same time, > though. In terms of getting ICU "done", talk about bad timing. I suspect everyone's concentration is as directed towards 6.1 and other more urgent issues - this right now is far from peoples minds (I've, for instance, been simply deleting your patches). Andrew