From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 125338 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2016 19:08:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 125321 invoked by uid 89); 22 Sep 2016 19:08:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1982, converted, Built, belief X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:08:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1999E63C; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u8MJ8Kfi011874; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:08:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFA 0/5] Some random C++-ification To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1474566656-15389-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <1ee37f8c-0c1a-7368-4cea-96bbbf43a2af@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:10:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1474566656-15389-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 On 09/22/2016 06:50 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I was feeling inspired by Pedro's Cauldron slides, so I found a few Awesome! :-) > random spots that could be converted from cleanups to self-managing > data structures from libstdc++ -- in these cases, std::string and > std::vector. > > I saw a note in one of the C++ conversion documents about perhaps not > using std::vector, since GCC did not. However, I think often GCC's > uses are unusual, and I don't think there is any reason to avoid > std::vector in (most of) gdb. Agreed. > > This should probably not go in until after Pedro's "new" patch. Does that patch look OK to you? > > Built and regtested on x86-64 Fedora 24. > > A few reflections on these changes: > > * First, I think it's a nice improvement. The examples here aren't so > dramatic, but if you dig a bit it's easy to find cases where the > cleanup logic is complicated; and this approach eventually lets one > delegate all that work to the compiler. Agreed. > > * Speaking of, I have a patch to convert uses of the ensure_python_env > to use RAII. However, I don't think this is ready to go in -- > because the cleanups installed by this are order-sensitive with > respect to other cleanups that might be created in the various > Python-calling functions. My belief is that cleanups have to all be > run before any destructors, so any ordering issues are a subtlety > that, in the short term, will have to be accounted for in code > review. > > * It wasn't actually clear to me that this kind of change is > desirable. I think it is. We need to eliminate _all_ cleanups in order to get rid of the TRY/CATCH macros... I think there's a lot of value in getting the codebase rid of the C -> C++ partial transition and inviting to work on. > > * I was unclear on the coding style to use so I just used the gdb C > style. Maybe there are some spaces that shouldn't be there now. Looked fine to me. Thanks, Pedro Alves