This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB in C++
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:24 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > If GDB Internal's contents was transferred to the GDB wiki, maybe people
> > would feel more compelled to update and expand it. I know I would try to
> > contribute to it as I learn new stuff. The downside when comparing to
> > patches against the existing documentation sources would be that peer
> > review would be a bit more awkward (but there are ways around it).
>
> The problems with the GDB documentation are not whether it lives
> in a .texi file or in a .html file. The problem is in the content.
It seems most people here don't see much of an advantadge in moving docs
to the wiki. That's fine for me, I don't have a strong opinion about
that. As you say, the main problem is that the documentation is not
being given much priority.
> There are two related fixes for this problem. (Possibly three,
> with the first one being recognition that there is a problem.)
>
> 1) The knowledge that the experienced GDB developers have about the
> program needs to be added to the documentation. This can either be
> by them writing the docs or by them working with a less experienced
> developer who writes the docs. (You might remember that I offered
> to be the latter a short while ago, but I got no takers.)
>
> 2) The recognition that some of the problems with the documentation
> stem from the fact that GDB is complex, cryptic, unclear and
> convoluted. There are a number of ways to address this with
> significant refactoring of the code into separate modules with
> well defined interfaces being one, as well as my previous
> suggestion to convert to using real object oriented code instead
> of awkwardly trying to simulate it.
I think this thread is important because it brings forward the issue
that there is a barrier for new folks who would like to contribute code
to the GDB project. I think that both of the fixes you mention above
should be implemented. Regarding point 2: GDB is such an old project,
and because of this there's a lot of cruft which is not easily
identifiable by those who are not familiar with the code or the historic
issues behind it. (that's why I mentioned "pitfalls" in my earlier
e-mail).
I hope we can get to some conclusion regarding this. Even if it is that
the interested parties (me, for instance) should just send patches to
the internals texinfo file.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center