Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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.