On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 03:51:24 PM Ngie Cooper wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 2017, at 15:22, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> Actually this is exactly what I would expect from Linux!
> >> 
> >> Why do we need to pull the trigger on GDB other than to pull the trigger
> >> to say we are GPL free, if that is the reason then this is the wrong
> >> way to go about it.
> > 
> > I think "gdb in base is horribly broken" is the real reason. You need
> > the port to do anything non-trivial these days.
> > 
> > Plus core set this as a goal for the project after it was clear that
> > was a consensus desire several years ago. Can't fault someone for
> > working towards that goal.
> +1 to Warner's sentiments.
> gdb in base doesn't work well with threads (6.x never did ;/..), and lacks 
> support for other things (like python debugging). Being able to debug threads 
> reliably is a make or break thing.
> So while I understand and in general agree with you Rod, I completely 
> disagree on the practical end of things. I'm actually kind of curious as to 
> why this isn't being done globally.. but I assume that it was described in 
> one of the many threads some time ago about the status quo for debugging with 
> gdb on tier-two architectures.

As the commit message stated, gdb in ports doesn't yet include kgdb
support for ARM, and no one has tested the sparc64 support for gdb
in ports, so those two architectures remain on.  For all other platforms,
gdb in ports is a strict superset of gdb in base.

John Baldwin
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to