Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def?

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

Hi Joel,

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:49:41 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I draw from Tom and I's experience with the type handling and the language
> vector. Part of the language vector and the associated complexity would be
> unnecessary if Ada was more standard, rather than some side-entity that
> needs to be plugged into the core system.

I actively maintain the counterpart dynamic types implementation for Fortran
(contrary to Ada) - archer-jankratochvil-vla.  I understand it is a second
class citizen as it is not merged in FSF GDB (contrary to Ada) but I find
unfair to just make the dynamic types of Ada "the standard" and let's see what
happens next.  Primarily because personally I find the DWARF expressions based
dynamic types of archer-jankratochvil-vla the more seamless solution for GDB
dynamic types in general.


>     1. Do we want to go with the propose patch series (merging the def
>        files, and then simplifying a bit the code afterwards)?
> 
>     2. Do we want to rename the Ada opcodes? I can do that as a third
>        patch, for instance.

I do not mind the order of the chosen steps, I just did not want to happen it
as described in the previous paragraph.


Thanks,
Jan