From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:29:18 +0900 Message-ID: <87siebm1a9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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> <87mw4lnked.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83egpw78tp.fsf@gnu.org> <878ug3ofdl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83h9ur5bta.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423765793 29608 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2015 18:29:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 12 19:29:41 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 1YLyWC-0003n2-KA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:29:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51690 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLyWB-0004Ms-W9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41088) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLyW0-0004MP-3T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLyVz-0003Ko-4Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:28 -0500 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:35911) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YLyVt-0003II-7x; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:29:21 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AA2E1C388A; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:29:18 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F1C21A26E3; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:29:18 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83h9ur5bta.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.161 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:182969 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Well, others don't. Of course. I don't deny that my personal tastes and needs are personal. > And if LLDB never implements those, I don't think > we need to worry about it ever becoming a contender. *shrug* You can prune that fork, and start worrying. > LLDB doesn't even _have_ a manual. So much for its > discoverability. It hasn't yet occurred to me to look for one. Not so, GDB. > I don't think LLDB is targeting some "downmarket", they target the > same population of software developers as GDB. You and Stefan and me > and all of us here. You are obviously out of my league. Dunno about where Stefan plays but he claims not to be missing any of those features you consider essential in a modern debugger. I really don't think it's useful to talk about "one population" here. > And if GDB stagnates and LLDB (or some other package) surpasses it, > then I'll agree that supporting a better contender becomes an > important goal of Emacs. Hmm. So David's right about you being in partial opposition to Richard on these things. > You seem to see some ominous signs in what Richard wrote, but I > don't. Having known Richard for many years, having met him face to > face several times, and yes, having sparred with him on a few > occasions, I see no conclusions here to be drawn that go beyond > this specific issue. Oh, there are no omens here, just the same old same old. I drew my conclusions a decade or more ago; I'm just hoping to be proved wrong. I guess I have to keep hoping.