Re: Any plans to integrate just binutils‑gdb into GCC?

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc-help <[email protected]> writes:

>   2.
> Hard to make changes across both binutils-gdb and GCC. And this has been =
proven
> that LLVM now makes changes much faster than GCC for adding features. The=
re are
> many other reasons why LLVM moves faster (such as cross compiling does no=
t need
> a seperate $target-gcc ), however, that is an important one.

The reason is probably more than LLVM has many times more developers.

>   3.
> Confusing. People often only build cross compilers for binutils-gdb, when=
 they often need to build it for native compilers too.
>   4.
> Hard for binutils-gdb and gcc to use latest C++ version compared to LLVM.

What?  This is unrelated.  In fact, GDB uses a higher C++ version than
GCC does for it source code.

>   5.
> LLVM provides much more tools than binutils-gdb + GCC combines. Without p=
utting them together, a lot of tools are simply impossible.
>   6.
> Lack of important modern targets support for gcc/binutils-gdb. No android=
, no windows on arm, no mac, no wasm. One reason is exactly they need to su=
bmit mailing patches to both of them, that is extremely annoying and often =
breaks things across projects

No, that's not the reason.  See above.
=2D-=20
Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEKBAEWCgCyFiEE/uKz0RP8AKMWLWBhUsKUMB6ixJMFAmph6R8bFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGRUUyQjNEMTEzRkMwMEEzMTYyRDYw
NjE1MkMyOTQzMDFFQTJDNDkzGBxhYXJzZW5vdmljQGJheWxpYnJlLmNvbQAKCRBS
wpQwHqLEk3ECAQD3lIMJOiZfTdnsy84nKVqbsiGbFEI9SWZoVQQX2zazNgEAtQJC
S1bpbN7E+HrBWpwhFhPhnfhTyhwInPJjnMdbhQY=
=Pn3f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--