From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D2EC385041D for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 16:29:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3D2EC385041D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D1281E554; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/3] gdb: support for eBPF To: "Jose E. Marchesi" , Andrew Burgess Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20200803140237.14476-1-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <20200803140237.14476-2-jose.marchesi@oracle.com> <87o8nrengw.fsf@oracle.com> <20200804134154.GV853475@embecosm.com> <87ft928nm8.fsf@oracle.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <52afe8b7-5f69-61df-68bc-737672167b54@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:29:35 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87ft928nm8.fsf@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:29:45 -0000 On 2020-08-04 10:57 a.m., Jose E. Marchesi via Gdb-patches wrote: > I don't think anything in the proposed patch is invalid C++. I was just > expressing a personal preference in style, call it Cish C++ if not C. > > Of course, if the global maintainers decide that "quality" C++ requires > avoiding `struct' keywords and using nullptr instead of NULL, and that > it is important for new code to stick to it, then sure I will just > change it without further discussion :) > Like I said, I don't think it is something worth fighting over, because it's not functional. I would be a bit more pushy when it gets to using unique_ptr to memory management with error handling, using std::vector instead of a home grown vector implementation, using inheritance instead of an array of function pointers to implement a vtable, etc. Basically, anything for which C++ can provide more safety. Simon