From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105655 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2016 14:17:08 -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 105633 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2016 14:17:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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, 30 Nov 2016 14:16:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (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 C03924DD44; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAUEGs6Z029490; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:16:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] Class-ify ui_out_level To: Antoine Tremblay References: <20161124152428.24725-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20161124152710.25007-16-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <82c06e7795f785cdff3090bb38880a2b@polymtl.ca> <5a48d12d-c6ab-1c31-53ce-80a85602362b@redhat.com> Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00989.txt.bz2 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. Thanks, Pedro Alves