From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:59:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200103131956.f2DJuCT31263@fillmore.constant.com> <20010314132500.D6148@disaster.jaj.com> <20010314212236.A28674@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00112.html Christopher Faylor 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