Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

On 14 Mar 2001 16:15:49 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:27:54AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> > Then fork. 
> >> It wasn't worth it when i started rewriting it 6 months ago.
> >> There is nothing so amazingly special about GDB that it couldn't be
> >> written from the ground up better, IMHO. 
> >...
> >> Maybe in a few months i'll throw it on sourceforge or something, and
> >> open it up to contributions.
> >
> >I am looking forward to it!
> >
> >It is also my experience that the current gdb is almost unusable
> >for C++ (and has been for a very long time).  Whenever I mailed
> >to the gdb maintainers I got back: we don't have a problem with it.
> >I guess they just don't program (complex) C++ stuff :/
> 
> You realize that you're talking to the gdb C++ maintainer (Daniel
> Berlin), right?

He probably doesn't.  Whenever I can't reproduce a problem, I usually
just ask for more information.  I debug complex C++ apps with gdb to the
degree I can. Once again, it's not that it *can't* be fixed, or won't be
fixed, it's just going to take a long time for one person to do it,
because there is a lot of work to do. 

I also don't always have time to look at each C++ problem, but i always
at least respond.

The rewriting in C++ is, as I said, something I do for fun when i get
frustrated. When i'm frustrated with GDB, i'm obviously not going to get
work done on GDB, so I work on it.  It's easier to work on than trying
to redo a lot of stuff in gdb, because of how much legacy code there is
that you can't break (or have to update to whatever you are doing).  

> 
> cgf