From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Molenda To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Huge Apple gdb code dropping^H^H^H^H Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:25:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20011129005901.A60085@molenda.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00341.html David Relston wrote: > This is good news! Objective C is one of the languages supported by > gcc. It is also the language used in the GNUstep project, which brings > NeXTSTEP/OpenStep capability to Linux, BSD, Windoze, etc. Of > importance to > me, it allows a project I wrote for NeXTSTEP/OpenStep to run on Linux. Yep, all the ObjC changes are in that mega patch. As I wrote in the note, we are working on a clean ObjC support patch to be submitted -- this is one of the most useful big changes in our tree and we want to get it integrated into the FSF sources. I believe we'll have that patch out soon; Andrew is less optimistic and wants an unfiltered patch in the hand instead of two in the bush. :-) > Objective C support has not been part of mainline gdb for several > years - > at least since gdb 4.17. There have been "unofficial" patches for 4.17, > 4.18, and 5.0, but as gdb has evolved over the years it has become > increasingly difficult to port the unofficial patches to each successive > version of gdb. Having the Objective C support code be part of the > official, mainline of gdb is something I've wanted for the last couple > of > years. I'm not any kind of expert on the history of ObjC patches, but I believe these patches are originally written by Michael Snyder when he was working at NeXT. He's been trying to get a clear copyright assignment to the FSF for them for years, but hasn't gotten that permission from the NeXT management. NeXT+Apple has Seen The Light and is happy to assign changes to gdb back to the FSF. (in theory, we could probably even get a clear statement about the old ObjC support patches if someone was really interested in trying to bring them up to date and merge them in. But I'd obviously prefer that we go with the ObjC patches in use at Apple. :-) The changes on the net are probably not the same as the changes in the Apple patch I submitted. I gather there were multiple ObjC implementations done at NeXT, and the one on the net was a big rewrite by Michael intended to fix a number of bogosities in the other one. We may have this 'other one' as our main sources these days. As I said, we've got no revision history from before 2000, and none of the people currently working on gdb have been at it for more than a few years. Jason From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5086 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2001 19:25:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4837 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 19:24:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 19:24:13 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fATJODu12225 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:24:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:23:58 -0800 Received: from moleja (moleja.apple.com [17.202.42.23]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fATJOCe07210 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:24:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:24:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Huge Apple gdb code dropping^H^H^H^H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v475) From: Jason Molenda To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20011129005901.A60085@molenda.com> Message-ID: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011125012400.wcyMLVCMg4F8jZhi439P5oL0T8UHny4vFI09QqctGow@z> David Relston wrote: > This is good news! Objective C is one of the languages supported by > gcc. It is also the language used in the GNUstep project, which brings > NeXTSTEP/OpenStep capability to Linux, BSD, Windoze, etc. Of > importance to > me, it allows a project I wrote for NeXTSTEP/OpenStep to run on Linux. Yep, all the ObjC changes are in that mega patch. As I wrote in the note, we are working on a clean ObjC support patch to be submitted -- this is one of the most useful big changes in our tree and we want to get it integrated into the FSF sources. I believe we'll have that patch out soon; Andrew is less optimistic and wants an unfiltered patch in the hand instead of two in the bush. :-) > Objective C support has not been part of mainline gdb for several > years - > at least since gdb 4.17. There have been "unofficial" patches for 4.17, > 4.18, and 5.0, but as gdb has evolved over the years it has become > increasingly difficult to port the unofficial patches to each successive > version of gdb. Having the Objective C support code be part of the > official, mainline of gdb is something I've wanted for the last couple > of > years. I'm not any kind of expert on the history of ObjC patches, but I believe these patches are originally written by Michael Snyder when he was working at NeXT. He's been trying to get a clear copyright assignment to the FSF for them for years, but hasn't gotten that permission from the NeXT management. NeXT+Apple has Seen The Light and is happy to assign changes to gdb back to the FSF. (in theory, we could probably even get a clear statement about the old ObjC support patches if someone was really interested in trying to bring them up to date and merge them in. But I'd obviously prefer that we go with the ObjC patches in use at Apple. :-) The changes on the net are probably not the same as the changes in the Apple patch I submitted. I gather there were multiple ObjC implementations done at NeXT, and the one on the net was a big rewrite by Michael intended to fix a number of bogosities in the other one. We may have this 'other one' as our main sources these days. As I said, we've got no revision history from before 2000, and none of the people currently working on gdb have been at it for more than a few years. Jason