Re: [PATCH] Start abstraction of C++ abi's

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

> On 19 Feb 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > But rest assured, this stuff will be documented, unlike the stuff
> > it's replacing.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> (I'm sorry to be such a nag lately on these matters, but after reading 
> gdbint.texinfo from the first line to the last, I came to the conclusion 
> that it leaves a lot to be desired, to put it gently...)

Yup. Somewhere along the line, the idea that you should be able to
familiarize yourself with an area of gdb by 
1. Reading the approriate section of gdbint
2. Reading the code

got lost, and now we are only left with:

1. Reading the code

which is bad. This gives us no way to know what it's *supposed* to be
doing, or how it's *supposed* to be working, among other things.


Every couple weeks I find some new piece of hardcoded C++ code in gdb
in a random file that I never noticed before.  It was obvious no one
ever tried to document this stuff, or else they would have realized
they file they were trying to put something in was the *wrong one*.

--Dan