Time for turning off gdb by default? Or worse...

[John Baldwin]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:14:07 pm Peter Wemm wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 4/12/14, 4:35 AM, Ed Maste wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 April 2014 14:26, Julian Elischer <julian at freebsd.org>
> >>>
> >>> bleagh!
> >>>
> >>> compare with ddd..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/d/data_display_debugger_for_mac-203841-1231223624.jpeg
> >>>
> >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/   for more examples
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how that's relevant; we're not contemplating putting that
> >> in the base system.
> >>
> > I'm suggestng that it's another way where gdb has features that lldb
> > doesn't. A plethora of front-ends.
> 
> Maybe, but that's not the question here.  The curses front end was a
> distraction.
> 
> The issue was:
> Given that the in-tree gdb is woefully stale and increasingly
> difficult to use with our current toolchain, is it time to turn it off
> and put our weight behind the ports version?  If so, what would we
> have to take care of or  bring over to the port version before we
> could?
> 
> The consensus seems to be that the loss of kgdb functionality would be
> a blocker.
> 
> Front ends for debuggers are way out of scope of the original question.

It would be relevant if the answer were to ditch gdb entirely and depend on
a kernel front-end for lldb for all kernel debugging (which is not an
unreasonable assumption to make given what we've done with the compiler).

-- 
John Baldwin