Re: [patch 2/2] Assert leftover cleanups in TRY_CATCH

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:50:47 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> 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.

I'm not going to enter an opinion of C over C++ here,
but I don't see how inferior breakpoint slowness is related.
[I can imagine a reason why multiple virtual class inheritance is related,
but then again I'm not sure I'd want to see gdb use it itself.]

btw, is the slowness just an all-stop thing?
Or is there room for massive improvement in non-stop too?