Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:25:00PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> >I agree with Benjamin here: if they won't approve on a timely basis,
> >and won't give you maintainer authority, then fork and do it the Right
> >Way.
> 
> Daniel is the C++ maintainer for gdb.  The problem is that some of the
> changes required to fix C++ handling touch on other code like the symbol
> table parts of gdb.

Having some good sense left, i'll just drop out of the discussion
at this point and get back to work. But there are plently  of patches
that  have nothing to do with C++, or even me.  It took a month to
approve Jason Merrill's simple AUTO_MANGLING change (I know it sounds
like a C++ fix, but it doesn't fall in my maintainership, so it's
not), for instance. There are plently  of examples.

> 
> I won't go into great details about why there were problems with patch
> acceptance but suffice it to say that not all of the problems were due
> to the fact that GDB patch approval is (arguably) slow.
And i'll leave this one alone. Suffice to say there are other problems
as well, but they are mostly minor compared to patch approval time.

> 
> So, before anyone draws conclusions on the GDB patch approval process,
> please read the gdb and gdb-patches mailing list archives.
Please, do.
Draw your own conclusions, don't rely on me, or anyone else. Try
submitting a patch for yourself (Hey, there's a cheap attempt to spur development).

> 
> >That's great.  Well, it's not great that you're frustrated, but that
> >you're rewriting it.  With years of stuff purged, someday I might be
> >able to understand the debugger.  :-)
> 
> I have Cc'ed the gdb mailing list.  If you all have complaints about
> gdb, it makes sense to talk about them there.
> 
Hey, Don't blame me,  Ben started it. :)
--Dan
> cgf