From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21728 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2016 19:24:28 -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 21711 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2016 19:24:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=hate 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; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:24:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 074656A6AF for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9RJOAux029321 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:24:11 -0400 Subject: Re: C++11 (abridged version) To: GDB Patches References: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 On 10/20/2016 06:07 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > My opinion on #3 (should we require C++11 now), is yes. C++11 is a > great step up from C++03, and being able to use it fully would result > in a more efficiency gdb, and would also allow simplifying things that > require ugly workarounds in C++03. I.e., if you hate C++ and you think > it's messy, it may actually be that what you hate is C++03, and that you'd > actually like C++11 if you give it a chance. E.g., rvalue references, efficient > move-aware containers (also allowing us to make containers "own" the containing > objects, resulting in even simpler code), template aliases, variadic templates, > etc. etc. C++11 would avoid having to consider reimplementing basic utilities > like e.g., a type-safe hash table. C++11 is also a _simpler_ language in a way, > as some ugly warts have been ironed out in the language (e.g., std::string > and contiguous buffer guarantees). Seems like pretty much everyone is in agreement with this, so I've sent a new patch set for this now: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00773.html I'd appreciate a review. Thanks, Pedro Alves