From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23038 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2004 17:50:17 -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 22841 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2004 17:50:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 17:50:07 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:48:55 +0000 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Andrew Cagney'" , Subject: RE: GDB is the GNU project's native debugger Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:11:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <419A2E2F.5010602@gnu.org> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2004 17:48:56.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B2D3DF0:01C4CC04] X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner On Behalf Of Andrew Cagney > Sent: 16 November 2004 16:43 > GDB is the GNU project's native debuger. While we're > certainly happy to > accomodate people using GDB as either an embedded debugger or native > debugger on other systems, the need to persue GDB as a native > debugger > on GNU systems must be our first priority. > > Do we all agree with this? Well, "Up to a point, Lord Copper". I will take it that you do not mean that the primary purpose of GDB is to run under the HURD, since that doesn't really fully exist or work. I'm not sure what you mean by "GNU system**S**" in the plural, because that's the only one. Unixen are largely proprietary, and GNU/Linux is GNU/Linux, and not just plain GNU. If you'd care to enlarge and clarify on the precise shade of meaning you were attaching to the phrase, I might modify some of what follows from here. To my understanding, and correct me if you feel I've misunderstood, a major part of the purpose of the GNU project is to encourage and evangelise the spread of open source, and the strategic method for achieving that goal is to provide free software, in particular a free toolchain, across as wide a range of platforms as possible, and in particular the reason for the existence of the LGPL exception is to enable the GNU toolchain and software family to be ported to proprietary systems and to make inroads for open software there and convince users of proprietary systems of the value and benefits that can be obtained from the open source philosophy. So while I can see that it would make both philosophical, technical and political sense to prioritise support for the more open systems above support for proprietary ones, I don't think that policy should be pursued over-zealously. We _want_ users of proprietary systems to throw away their proprietary tools and start using open ones and writing open code. Gcc and binutils both make a point of attempting to natively support a very wide range of platforms for just this reason. I think that GDB should be attempting to target fairly much the same range. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....