> > What do you think? SHould we make the code work like before? Or this is > > functionality that we don't want to have because it is "dumb"? (I think > > that Max here means that it adds complexity and it could be dangerous, > > but I am just guessing) > > I'm baffled that this is even debatable. The system supports running 32 bit > code in a 64 bit system. Obviously you must be able to debug such processes. > > I suppose you could claim it would suffice to build two debuggers, one for > each target. But that makes no sense. All the toolchains are > multi-architecture: you can compile for 32 or 64 bit at the drop of a switch, > and you can link all that with a single toolchain. GDB has supported > multi-arch for a long time (in fact, not just multiple width but entirely > different ISAs from a single image). So it would be thoroughly strange to > say that this sort of basic flexibility and user-friendliness is to be > abandoned here. And why would NetBSD want to regress like that? Other > platforms do this as a matter of course; it seems odd for NetBSD even to > consider looking technically inferior in this respect.
Having 32-bit and 64-bit debuggers isn't sufficient. Specifically, it can't handle an exec() call where the new executable has a different ISA; and this imnsho is a must have. Andrew
