From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31019 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 15:58:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 30916 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 15:58:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:58:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JFvrXN002560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:57:53 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JFvnFf025048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:57:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:58:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def? Message-ID: <20120319155749.GA24963@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120319084514.GA29240@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120319153347.GW2853@adacore.com> <20120319153939.GA23668@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120319154941.GX2853@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120319154941.GX2853@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00707.txt.bz2 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