From xemacs-m  Sun Jun  8 17:23:48 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05379
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 17:23:44 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id AAA08543; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 00:23:45 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Question about gud.el and gdb.el
References: <vwmwwo4693b.fsf@calico.cis.ohio-state.edu>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 09 Jun 1997 00:23:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: Pete Ware's message of 08 Jun 1997 18:08:56 -0400
Message-ID: <kigyb8ku427.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 30
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.3(beta4)

Pete Ware <ware@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:

> Can anyone offer some advice?  I'd imagine the FSF versions are pretty 
> good (pending some porting work to XEmacs) since gdb is their baby.

I like the FSF gdb interface, because completions work right in gdb.
If we get that right in XEmacs, I'll never again invoke gdb from the
shell (famous last words).

This will sound lame, but I really have no idea which file is
responsible for that.  But I do know that the FSF stuff is better
after invoking `M-x gdb'.

<clickety click>

More "investigation" shows that `M-x gdb' in FSF actually calls gud.
Which leads us to:

> [I'm tempted to axe gdb.el and take 19.34's gud.el so you
>  better speak up].

Do it, as far as I'm concerned.  Compatible and unrepentant!

(or was it vice versa?  hmm...)

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
"Silence!" cries Freydag. "I did not call thee in for a consultation!" 
"They are my innards! I will not have them misread by a poseur!"

