From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:58:40 +0200 Message-ID: <83y4o57lfj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mw4rxkzv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87y4oavxcy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87d25juy8m.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83iofa8lu2.fsf@gnu.org> <87wq3qrvjz.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83386d92ox.fsf@gnu.org> <874mqtsoqy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423587561 22820 80.91.229.3 (10 Feb 2015 16:59:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eller.helmut@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 10 17:59:05 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YLE9Q-0006eF-Bf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:59:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40744 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLE9P-0001Bi-RX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:59:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLE9L-000188-EH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:59:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLE9K-0007nD-8B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:58:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:63835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLE9E-0007lZ-G1; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:58:52 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NJK00400F5TZE00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:58:51 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NJK0047DF62UH40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:58:51 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <874mqtsoqy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:182820 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, eller.helmut@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:41:25 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: David Kastrup > > >> As far as I remember, company-mode had working code for LLVM-based > >> completion. > > > > So? It's working code, isn't it? Anyone can use it, can't they? > > The difference between a package being in ELPA and having to be > installed manually significantly changes its adoption and audience. The importance and the functionality of a package also plays a significant role in its adoption. > > And, FWIW, from my POV supporting LLDB is not an important issue, > > certainly nowhere as important as making Emacs more like modern IDEs. > > Uh, there is a connection. Because modern IDEs tend to have useful > program information when debugging instead of (optimized out). Compile with -Og (which should be the default anyway), and you have that with GCC/GDB as well. > > When LLDB gets anywhere near GDB in functionality and usability, let > > alone surpasses it, maybe then I might get interested. > > Seems you missed where people stated that its willingness to talk about > values that can only be deduced by cooperation with the compiler was > making a crucial difference in usability over gdb. I don't think what you say is true. > At any rate, you seem to be _totally_ on the other side of Richard on > this one. You want to start thinking about LLDB when it is getting more > useful than GDB Not _when_, _if_. > >> > Free Software is about freedom of developers as well. > >> > >> Not at its core. > > > > Yes, at its core: the freedom to change the code requires a developer > > who can actually do that. > > > > You'll find that wherever conflicts of interest between users and > programmers are considered, Richard puts the users' interests first. Irrelevant.