This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 02 Mar 2007 08:37:38 -0800
- Subject: Re: Reduce Dwarf Debug Size
- References: <352a1fb20703011054s31e07ea1ye93eaa49fcc513e1@mail.gmail.com> <352a1fb20703011124v2ed161eelcc431ec362e8329@mail.gmail.com> <m3wt20zlt3.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <643DEA4E-C8FD-4D7B-8C3F-87DDFA51961D@apple.com> <m3mz2wzhvs.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <CB04DB52-9F4A-4043-87D5-B4393316DACA@apple.com> <45E7656F.4040209@codesourcery.com> <57B0CF14-E869-48BE-8AC1-CD881F6860D0@apple.com> <de8d50360703011700m2c6994b4x722aa45bfaeed858@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0703012004140.4448@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <de8d50360703011730x73b06889o41a1be2f5cb8518b@mail.gmail.com> <4437282B-AC3F-48FF-A226-513DF9D5E997@apple.com> <m3649jvdt5.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <10703021610.AA07721@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
> Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF
> GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial
> interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF
> side.
I don't need or want to dig this up yet again. I'll just reaffirm
that my beliefs are what they are, and that others disagree.
> > Lacking a benevolent dictator means that "trust but verify" does not
> > work, because there is no way to implement the "verify" step. Or,
> > rather: if "verify" fails, there is no useful action to take, except
> > in the most obvious of cases.
>
> I disagree here too. Anybody has the right and ability to look at a patch
> that was already committed, decide they don't like it, and say why. And
> they can patch the patch. We see people doing this for spelling and
> whitespace errors all the time.
Of course. But what we can not do, in practice, is revert a patch
which does not actually break anything. Heck, sometimes we can't even
revert a patch which *does* break things.
Ian