This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: C++ FAIL counts and the effect of demangler fix
> From: Daniel Berlin <email@example.com>
> Date: 16 Feb 2001 03:57:11 -0500
> Eli Zaretskii <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > From: Per Bothner <email@example.com>
> > > Date: 15 Feb 2001 13:54:02 -0800
> > >
> > > Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > o I don't want GDB's release schedule in
> > > > someway directly tided to GCC's release
> > > > schedule.
> > >
> > > I think that is unavoidable, given that Gcc 3 has a new and
> > > incompatible C++ ABI. It is Bad if the current release of Gdb cannot
> > > debug code produced from the current release of Gcc. Therefore, Gdb
> > > 5.1 should be released before or at the same time as Gcc 3.0 is
> > > released, and it needs to have at least tolerable support for the new
> > > C++ ABI.
> > If there are important reasons why the next release of GDB should
> > support the new C++ ABI, then perhaps the GCC team should help Daniel
> > and others work on the GDB side of this support.
> I don't agree with this.
> The GCC team is responsible for GCC, not GDB.
[Sorry for the long quotations, they are necessary in this case.]
Let me back up for a moment. See the quotations above; it goes like
- Andrew says he doesn't want GDB's release schedule to be directly
tied to GCC's releases (FWIW, I'm with Andrew on this one);
- Per replies that it is very important that GDB _does_ release its
new version with the new C++ ABI support together with GCC 3.0;
- To this I say that if the GCC teams wants it so badly, they
should come on board and help.
In other words, I also don't think that the GCC team should be
developing GDB. What I am saying is that if they think our decisions
are not good enough for them, they have the opportuninty to make a
difference by contributing the code.