From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14149 invoked by alias); 7 May 2013 01:47:31 -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 14137 invoked by uid 89); 7 May 2013 01:47:30 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 May 2013 01:47:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r471lS90024898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 21:47:28 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-69.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.69]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r471lO50008202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 May 2013 21:47:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 01:47:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Assert leftover cleanups in TRY_CATCH Message-ID: <20130507014724.GA14170@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130501165750.GA453@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87obcoyot3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130506181832.GA23882@host2.jankratochvil.net> <878v3symbc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878v3symbc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:50:47 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: > Jan> C++ exceptions solve it all, everyone knows it, it is simple, > Jan> effective and at least in comparison with the existing GDB system > Jan> it is foolproof. > > I know, and I agree that it would yield a better gdb, but I don't think > it is going to happen. I can't seriously reply these questions anymore. GCC already requires C++ so why GDB cannot? I do not remember any valid reason against C++ from all the GDB discussions around it. GDB still is barely usable for real C++ application debugging, debugging multiple virtual class inheritance does not work, one has to use printfs instead. Inferior breakpoint with conditional to stop only after thousands of iterations is so unusably slow it is faster to rebuild the inferior with the conditional put into inferior's source. etc. etc. And with all this work ahead continuously wasting engineering time on reimplementing C++-in-C... Although I was waiting for -Wc++-compat by Matt Rice at least as a first stap but that probably won't happen by Matt Rice so it needs a reassignment. Jan