From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27896 invoked by alias); 21 May 2014 22:55:15 -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 27886 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2014 22:55:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 22:55:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LMtARw015445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 May 2014 18:55:10 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-182.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.182]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4LMt9sN014412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 May 2014 18:55:09 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] constify to_attach References: <1400696455-29563-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <87mwebhsc2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140521212227.GN22822@adacore.com> <874n0ihl1c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20140521220529.GP22822@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 22:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20140521220529.GP22822@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 21 May 2014 15:05:29 -0700") Message-ID: <87lhtug2sy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 Joel> I searched the GDB wiki about C99, and there were no hits. I am Joel> wondering if we should be starting a list of C99 features we think Joel> would be worthwhile to allow. This one would definitely be on my list! I like designated init, "//" comments, varargs macros, "for (int i = ...", _Bool, and even declaring variables at point of use (but I know others dislike this one). I see C99 as a convenience upgrade. None of those things will markedly improve gdb's quality, they may just make the hacking marginally nicer. For me of course C99 is the runner-up choice ... Joel> Perhaps we can also list some of the issues that would prevent us Joel> from adopting a subset of C99 (Eg: fear if missing checks against Joel> disallowed features)? IIRC there was some concern about library issues. Or maybe that GCC doesn't implement all the IEEE additions? I don't really remember now. It's in the list archives. Tom