From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25282 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2012 19:15:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 25266 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2012 19:15:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:15:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0OJFCBo023319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:12 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OJFBoc032315; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:12 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0OJF96F030319; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:15:10 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] allow unqualified function names in linespecs References: <1323872680-12843-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20111221140128.GK23376@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111221140128.GK23376@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:01:28 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00838.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: [ oldish thread... ] Joel> Part of the problem also comes from the fact that C++ and Ada are so Joel> different, and thus are also often used in very different projects. Joel> Trying to unify support for both without some kind of abstraction Joel> layer is very hard. In fact, coming up with that abstraction layer Joel> is also very hard, as we're finding out. Totally agreed. Joel> My goal in the past 10 years, has always been to clean the Ada mode up, Joel> and all the messes we created. But at the same time, I dont' want that Joel> work to create more work for me during the periodic merges I make from Joel> the FSF tree to ours. So, my first goal is to first reconcile AdaCore's Joel> ada-* files with the ones on the FSF. That's a lot of micro-redesign, Joel> sometimes, to get things to an acceptable state. The good news is, Joel> I feel like I am getting really close. And once I'm done, I can start Joel> the cleanup in earnest. Joel> There are some thing that I need to accept though: If some things Joel> are common idioms in Ada, there is now way I am going to be able Joel> to stop supporting them without losing my job :-). Believe it or not, Joel> though, I do a fair amount of push back against some of the features Joel> that get requested internally. Yeah, I wasn't trying to express any displeasure with you personally. I hope it didn't come across that way. I was mostly just expressing a wish for how I would like gdb to be structured internally in the future. And, FWIW, I think there are already way, way too many special cases for C++ as well. Tom