Re: Preparing for the GDB 5.0 / GDB 2000 / GDB2k release

[Stan Shebs <shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com>]

Kevin_Hendricks wrote:

> And while you are at it, why not fix gdb to actually work with ppc and actually
> really and truly support a major platform (ppc) RIGHT_OUT_OF_THE_BOX god forbid!

If the author of the patches doesn't want to put them in as-is, I for one am not
going to override him...

> I am so tired of fighting with non-working gdb on ppc that gdb has become next
> to useless.  I am now getting hangs with wierd thread errors when debugging
> programs with Franz Sirl's gdb (and his is the *best* one I have found on ppc so
> far).

Now you know why we don't want to just hack in patches, eh?

>  2. patches need to be in the right FSF format or we can't except them
>     (what bullshit)

Depends on the project.  GCC is usually much tougher about patches than GDB,
so it surprises me you think it's easier to get a patch in there.

>  3. we can't use your patch you have not signed a damn release
>     (again why do none of the other FSF project require this).

This is simply not true.  *Every* FSF project requires this.  It may be
that some maintainers are being sloppy (in which case they'll hear from
RMS), and of course very small patches don't need an assignment.  Note that
the Linux kernel is not an FSF project, and they don't have any such
rule.

> Why is gdb so different?

I'm most familiar with GCC, and one big difference between GCC and GDB is that
GCC has more maintainers.  I've been recruiting people to be GDB maintainers
for years, and yet the list of people in gdb/MAINTAINERS is still very short,
which sucks - it means that the few available people have to do all the work.
We really do need more people to take up the responsibility for maintenance;
Cygnus/Red Hat can't do it all.

> Why can't it open up it process of getting patches in?

If by "open up", you mean "lower the standards", then no, we don't want to do
that.  I know for instance that GCC has not lowered its standards, and indeed
GDB has been criticized for having lower standards than some other projects.

If you mean, "provide quicker feedback" on patches, yes, that is a known
problem area.  See my comment on the number of maintainers available.

> Why is gdb development not geared to support Linux (any architecture) in any
> reasonable manner?

What do you mean by this?  I don't see the development as being "geared" in any
way - the development is driven by maintainers and contributors, all of whom we
know by name.  So if something is happening or not happening, it's because
particular people are or are not working on it.  If you mean "why is Kevin Buettner
not working on PowerPC GDB enough" :-), you can ask him that directly.

> So now we will have yet another new major gdb release without things working on
> powerpc (expected!) or even x86 linux???.

Last fall I said that one of the goals for 5.0 should be to support PowerPC Linux.

I still think that should be a goal, but timing will be driven by the people who
are actually doing the work, and by the amount of work, which, judging by your
comments above, is more than I had thought.  So it's going to take some committed
effort to make it happen.

Stan