Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?

[Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com>:

> FWIW, I always had the GDB patches I posted as an RFA approved or
> commented on in reasonable time (i.e. about a week).

> In any case, a fork is not something people should consider easily,
> just because someone's patch is not accepted quickly enough.

Maybe so.

But the lack of C++ support for gcc 3.0 is a problem.
And it will become a _huge_ problem when gcc 3.0 is released.

It must be adressed in some way, I think.  And a fork sounds like the
best alternative.

In a fork like this, one doesn't have to take into consideration
support for other languages in the common code.  Once the fork is
actually working for C++ in gcc 3.0, one can look into what changes
needs to be made in the common part of gdb, and argue for them, and
possibly work towards merging the new C++ support into the mainstream.

A fork doesn't _have_ to end up like GNU Emacs and XEmacs.  It could
be like with egcs and gcc (ie. first a fork and then a merge).