Message-Id: <199903251857.NAA15838@delorie.com> From: Robert Hoehne Organization: none provided To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 20:00:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Debugging support in DJGPP In-reply-to: <199903240649.BAA10763@mescaline.gnu.org> References: (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv) X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > If you think this will be safe, I don't have any objections. It would > be nice, though, if somebody would build GDB 4.16 with the modified > dbgcom.c and make sure it works. This will be probably need some changes to the gdb sources (or at least a complete reconfiguring of the preconfigured sources). As I last tried to rebuild gdb 4.16 with DJGPP 2.02 I failed but I really had not the motivation to try it deeper since there is gdb 4.17 already available for a long time and I'm waiting for 4.18 I think also, if Andris says, that it is enough tested and the exception stuff should be applied but that's only my personal opinion, since I don't understand that new changes to say if it is safe or not. But as I said already in the past, that changes should be made more clear. In my opinion the #ifdef FPC and so on should be removed since they don't belong to DJGPP and also the cvs keywords. And a last note, not really to this topic: Maybe sometimes someone will clean up all (or most) of the assembler code to C code and have only the really necessary code in assembler because I think, that most of us can read a C fragment much better than assembler and for a debugger there is no need to think about speed. ****************************************************** * email: Robert Hoehne * * Post: Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf, Germany * * WWW: http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~sho/rho * ******************************************************