From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16570 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2007 01:52:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 16544 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2007 01:52:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:52:50 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AF5982B8 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:52:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEED98299 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:52:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I5B5P-0002Jb-6K for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:52:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB in C++ Message-ID: <20070702015219.GA8882@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <46866F20.2010902@eagercon.com> <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org> <20070701223952.GC14414@radix50.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070701223952.GC14414@radix50.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:39:52AM +0200, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote: > Hello Daniel, > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:53:55PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > I've seen this complain from at least three different people. > > > > I'm in favor of switching to C++. I'm not going to argue about it if > > others disagree, but I'll offer to do most of the work if the > > consensus is positive. > > I had looked whether gdb could be compiled with g++, but hadn't gone > very far. The attached applies on HEAD and doesn't cause additional > testsuite failures on i386-linux. Please let me know if you need it, I > could continue (albeit slowly). It looks like quite a lot of mechanical > work. Thanks for the patch. To be honest, I wouldn't try that part at all - I was just going to wrap the BFD headers in extern "C"... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery