On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 14:48 +0200, Michael Schnell wrote: > On 09/13/2011 01:22 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: > > > > Don't insult people when you clearly don't have any experience > > whatsoever in working with them. > Sorry if I sounded impolite. I did not at all mean to insult them. On > the contrary I praise them for their exceptional work ! > > I only wanted to state that it does not make much sense to try to have > specific additional features included in gdb to improve it's usability > with FPC.
Why not? There are many already. If you want to do a full gdb-build, fpc is even a buildrequirement. ;) (This is for the gdb-testsuitem which has some fpc-tests) > > The gdb people have always been extremely helpful to Pierre, Joost and > > me whenever we had any questions whatsoever about how to add certain > > Pascal-specific functionality to gdb. And the gcc people have added a > > DWARF identifier for the i386 Borland calling convention in a header > > file that's imported by gdb so that it would be possible to add > > support for it to gdb (even though gcc does not support it in any way). > If we could really hope for this, I would vote for a gdb extension > instead of creating a completely new debugger from scratch . You do know that GDB does have a Pascal extension, right? Joost -- My Lazarus blog: http://www.lazarussupport.com/lazarus/weblog _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel