From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steinar Bang 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> <200103150907.EAA27838@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00132.html >>>>> Eli Zaretskii : > 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).