From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30242 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2004 20:19:41 -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 30235 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 20:19:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 20:19:40 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5982B92; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:19:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <403E54DA.8050403@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:19:00 -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: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Branch created for inter-compilation-unit references References: <1C4B9E16-67AD-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CD4D6.3000100@gnu.org> <1037DDEA-67B5-11D8-9146-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org> <403CEE5C.5080100@gnu.org> <20040226150526.GB13921@nevyn.them.org> <403E47FE.70409@gnu.org> <20040226192841.GA1005@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040226192841.GA1005@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:24:46PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 08:30:56AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>>>> >>>It's not more important in general, but since we are preparing to cut >>>>>> >>>the 6.1 branch in a few days, DW_OP_piece might be a good thing to do >>>>>> >>>now, while delaying intercu-branch merge till after the release. >>>>>> >>>It's a question of timing, not of an abstract importance. >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Then both you and Andrew underestimate the intrusiveness of DW_OP_piece >>>> >support. >> >>> >>> (I can't speak for Elena) I think I've got a pretty good feel for how >>> much work is involved in finishing (rather than prototyping) something >>> like this. Thats why I'm making noises about a DW_OP_piece hack for 6.1. > > > I haven't heard any of these noises? In any case I don't think it's a > particularly good idea, unless all you mean is handling the resulting > error() call so that it doesn't abort symbol reading. Lets say hints with others making various noises http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-02/msg00170.html If we don't do something, how useful will GDB 6.1 be when GCC 3.4 is released? Spending resources on adding ICU to the branch certainly won't fix that problem, sigh. I'm thinking of something that at least stops GDB falling on its sword when this happens. Andrew