Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!zurich.ai.mit.edu!jinx From: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: GNU Make 3.58 on HP-UX 7.0 ? Message-ID: Date: 22 Sep 90 14:36:21 GMT References: <1990Sep17.201337.15659@bpdsun1.uucp> <7370211@hpfcso.HP.COM> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Reply-To: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab. Lines: 28 In-reply-to: mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM's message of 21 Sep 90 18:16:51 GMT I'm sorry you feel that way. We do our best to fix all bugs that are reported against the optimizer. There are very few in 7.0 on the Series 300. We can't fix them if people avoid using the optimizer rather than submit bug reports, though. >> PS: Why don't HP9000s have the dbx debugger? > >NIH. Correct. Debuggers are non-standard; some of us happen to like xdb better. The biggest argument in favor of dbx is that some poeple may have become accustomed to its syntax. dbx does not have as full a feature set as does xdb, and I for one tend to use xdb's extra feautres a lot. It would be nice if HP changed xdb and cdb to use the same debugging information format (and understand the old one for compatibility) as dbx. In this way dbx could be ported by the users who wanted it. Furthermore gdb, in my opinion a much better debugger written by the Free Software Foundation, would have a cleaner port. Currently gcc has to use its own assembler and linker in order to put the debugging information on the object file that gdb will understand. The relative merits of dbx, gdb, and xdb/cdb can be argued over forever, since they are a matter of taste. I prefere the gcc/gdb combination because it allows me to debug fully optimized (-O) code, and gdb works nicely from within GNU Emacs.