On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ralf Corsepius <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/18/2013 02:24 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> On 06/18/2013 02:10 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> On 06/18/2013 01:58 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>>> >>>> Some debuggers do not cope with the new DWARF3/4 debug format introduced >>>> with GCC 4.8. Default to strict DWARF-2 on ARM, PowerPC and SPARC for >>>> now. >>>> >>>> This patch should be committed to GCC 4.8 and 4.9. >>> >>> >>> I am opposed to this patch, because >>> >>> * GNU software should not care about the limitations of commerical >>> stuff and >>> should only care about gdb. >> >> >> Actually GCC cares about commercial stuff, e.g. the VxWorks and Darwin >> ports use exactly the same mechanism. > > Well, RTMES these OSes are _closed source_. If GCC is interested in playing > it nice to them (Which I consider to be a management fault), they have no > other choice. > > RTEMS is open source, therefore there is no need to "play it nice" to any > closed source debugger stuff or similar. > Unless RTEMS developers particularly like to use the closed source debugger. Anyway, I think someone mentioned the sparc GDB has a problem too.
> >> The SPARC version of GDB seems to have problems here also: >> >> http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-devel/2013-May/003188.html >> >>> >>> * We should stay with the GCC's defaults and not diverge from these. >> >> >> In general this is true. >> >>> * Users, who are facing issues with commerical stuff can always >>> manually pass >>> appropriate options to CC if they need it. >> >> >> This approach is not possible for the multilibs. > > > It surly is. Simply let alone and forget about these commercial tools and > help improving the GNU versions. > > People who are using these commercial tools need to comprehend, that they > are on their own and need to cope with the problems *their* choice implies > are homemade by themselves. > Actually, my experience has been that relying on open source tools often leaves me on my own coping with problems. > In other words, if GCC's debug format doesn't work with the tools you spent > a lot of money for, it's your privat mistake to have spent money on them. > > It definitely is not a valid reason to strangle RTEMS! > Such colorful language. I don't see how this patch poses a problem for anyone right now. Someday perhaps the DWARF3/4 support will be mature and usable in production environments, but today does not seem to be that day. Persisting in attacks on this patch here and on the gcc-patches ml because of closed-mindedness about what qualifies as "open source" would be silly childlike behavior. > > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
