Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:41:25 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> >> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> 
> >> As far as I remember, company-mode had working code for LLVM-based
> >> completion.
> >
> > So?  It's working code, isn't it?  Anyone can use it, can't they?
> 
> The difference between a package being in ELPA and having to be
> installed manually significantly changes its adoption and audience.

The importance and the functionality of a package also plays a
significant role in its adoption.

> > And, FWIW, from my POV supporting LLDB is not an important issue,
> > certainly nowhere as important as making Emacs more like modern IDEs.
> 
> Uh, there is a connection.  Because modern IDEs tend to have useful
> program information when debugging instead of (optimized out).

Compile with -Og (which should be the default anyway), and you have
that with GCC/GDB as well.

> > When LLDB gets anywhere near GDB in functionality and usability, let
> > alone surpasses it, maybe then I might get interested.
> 
> Seems you missed where people stated that its willingness to talk about
> values that can only be deduced by cooperation with the compiler was
> making a crucial difference in usability over gdb.

I don't think what you say is true.

> At any rate, you seem to be _totally_ on the other side of Richard on
> this one.  You want to start thinking about LLDB when it is getting more
> useful than GDB

Not _when_, _if_.

> >> > Free Software is about freedom of developers as well.
> >> 
> >> Not at its core.
> >
> > Yes, at its core: the freedom to change the code requires a developer
> > who can actually do that.
> 
> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html>
> 
> You'll find that wherever conflicts of interest between users and
> programmers are considered, Richard puts the users' interests first.

Irrelevant.