From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9296 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2006 16:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 9286 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2006 16:29:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lightning.netspace.net.au (HELO mail.netspace.net.au) (203.10.110.77) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:29:19 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.10] (220-253-28-230.VIC.netspace.net.au [220.253.28.230]) by mail.netspace.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D53375A73 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:29:15 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <453F90DE.8090607@netspace.net.au> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:29:00 -0000 From: Russell Shaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060205 Debian/1.7.12-1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Gdb References: <453F0CA7.7070309@netspace.net.au> <20061025124921.GA15974@nevyn.them.org> <453F68E9.9050800@netspace.net.au> <20061025141656.GA18408@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20061025141656.GA18408@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:49PM +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: > >>This makes touching anything unpredictable, as there's too many combinations >>of possible code paths that may or may not be valid. > > Guess what? The conditions aren't orthogonal _for a reason_. > > I don't think there's any point in my continuing this conversation, so > this will probably be my last message. You continue insisting that > the complexity is unnecessary, and yet you don't know why it's there. > I can assure you that it isn't there just to make our lives harder. > >>It's undoable by anyone not intimately familiar with the code which >>means weeks of prodding with a second gdb. The payoff is better in >>making something totally different and new. > > Having spent many days considering this, talking to others about it, > and even starting it twice, I believe that you are wrong. > > There's a lot of payoff in starting from scratch, but (A) you have to > put in just about as much work, and (B) you end up with something > totally different. If that's your goal, congratulations (I'm thinking > of Frysk here, for instance). But if you wanted something that looked > like GDB... The amount of code is not what i mean. It's the organization that lacks coherency. There's too many things tacked on half-heartedly knowing whether that was the right thing to do or the right place to put it. So any patches i submit could easily break something on some other system, and it's hard to know. I'll cut or re-arrange various steps i've seen (during "run"), but i won't submit any patches for months (needs a lot of checking). I was going to copy stuff starting from scratch, but that seems a bit of effort after trying it. I'll just evolve the current gdb a bit.