Re: [PATCH 16/22] Class-ify ui_out_level

Antoine Tremblay
2016-11-30T14:21:20Z

Pedro Alves writes:

> On 11/30/2016 01:47 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>>
>> Pedro Alves writes:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2016 12:40 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote:
>
>>> In this case it looks like it's documented?
>>
>> Yes this case yes. I was thinking of
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-11/msg00973.html
>>
>
> GCC does not require C++11, so it's natural their document
> won't be saying anything about >= C++11 things. Maybe they
> won't mind it if we propose C++11 bits, if we want to.
> (But let's leave that particular style discussion that that thread.)
>
>> Also we allow the use of dynamic_cast while GCC doesn't...
>
> We're already requiring exceptions, which requires (some kind of) rtti
> under to hood, so allowing dynamic_cast would seem like a natural
> consequence. Not that I'd generally think that a design
> relying on dynamic_cast is a sane design, TBC.
>
>>
>> I'm sure other things will come up ?
>
> Sure, in which case we can document them. Here:
>
> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards#C.2B-.2B--specific_coding_conventions
>
> I had added the note about exceptions a while ago. We can
> certainly improve this while we go.
>

Right, sorry like I had missed that :)