From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4158 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2008 18:08:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 4150 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2008 18:08:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:08:24 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697A817F5BC for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:54:48 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m6TI83bk2089104 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:08:08 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6TI7rXI006624 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:07:57 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.102] ([9.18.238.102]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6TI7qTK006588; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:07:53 -0300 Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <488F4AA7.7060001@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1217354872.5842.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:28 +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Actually, it appears that this C++ discussion got a bit stalled, > apparently since > nobody wants to make the first step. I liked Michael Eager's idea of "C with classes". That would be a minimal subset of C++ which hopefuly brings the least dissonance, and at the same time already provides significant value. So I suggest starting with that? > So, how about his plan of action: > > 1. GDB is made compiled with C++ compiler, with resulting errors > removed. > 2. I refactor struct value, and folks get to comment if the resulting > code > is better, or worse, than what we have. > > Comments? Sounds great to me! -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center