• Jason House (2/2) Jan 24 2009 I was chatting on #gdb earlier today and it sounds like getting a patch ...
• Jarrett Billingsley (5/7) Jan 24 2009 I think pretty much everything DM makes is licensed under either
• Christopher Wright (7/10) Jan 24 2009 The FSF usually wants to own the copyright on the relevant code. That
• Walter Bright (3/7) May 10 2009 I'd be happy to address any licensing issues for a patch to gdb. Just
• Jason House (2/10) May 10 2009 I don't know what the past hang-ups were, but I guess that hardly matter...

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

I was chatting on #gdb earlier today and it sounds like getting a patch for the
d programming language into gdb shouldn't be too bad.  There's a patches
mailing list and some kind of paperwork to resolve copyright issues.

Is there any legal/copyright issues that prevent the gdb patch from making it
into gdb?  Maybe demangling uses digital mars code?  I'd really love to see
complete support for D in gdb.  It's really frustrating to not have it  :(

Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Jason House
<jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:
 I was chatting on #gdb earlier today and it sounds like getting a patch for
the d programming language into gdb shouldn't be too bad.  There's a patches
mailing list and some kind of paperwork to resolve copyright issues.

 Is there any legal/copyright issues that prevent the gdb patch from making it
into gdb?  Maybe demangling uses digital mars code?  I'd really love to see
complete support for D in gdb.  It's really frustrating to not have it  :(

I think pretty much everything DM makes is licensed under either
public domain or artistic.  Check out std.demangle and see what the
license says.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Jason House wrote:
 I was chatting on #gdb earlier today and it sounds like getting a patch for
the d programming language into gdb shouldn't be too bad.  There's a patches
mailing list and some kind of paperwork to resolve copyright issues.
 
 Is there any legal/copyright issues that prevent the gdb patch from making it
into gdb?  Maybe demangling uses digital mars code?  I'd really love to see
complete support for D in gdb.  It's really frustrating to not have it  :(

The FSF usually wants to own the copyright on the relevant code. That 
way, it's free to relicense stuff -- though public domain is good enough 
for that. Also, that way, the FSF has standing in case it has to go to 
court over the code -- but for public domain code, that isn't an issue, 
because absolutely everyone is allowed to use that code in any way they 
want.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Jason House wrote:
 Is there any legal/copyright issues that prevent the gdb patch from
 making it into gdb?  Maybe demangling uses digital mars code?  I'd
 really love to see complete support for D in gdb.  It's really
 frustrating to not have it  :(

I'd be happy to address any licensing issues for a patch to gdb. Just 
let me know.

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Jason House wrote:
 Is there any legal/copyright issues that prevent the gdb patch from
 making it into gdb?  Maybe demangling uses digital mars code?  I'd
 really love to see complete support for D in gdb.  It's really
 frustrating to not have it  :(

 
 I'd be happy to address any licensing issues for a patch to gdb. Just 
 let me know.

I don't know what the past hang-ups were, but I guess that hardly matters. I'll
ping the author of the existing gdb patches and try to reinitiate the
submission process. Additionally, we still need to figure out what is wrong
with -gc and fix it. In the past, I've spent some quality time on #gdb
discussing how to fix that. I'm just not knowlegable on the topic. Having the
compiler source could help... Do you have any pointers for where to look for
writing of debug info?