From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-29014-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17790 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2007 07:21:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 17781 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2007 07:21:18 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:21:16 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l627LAj3027282; 	Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id l627LAR3001590; 	Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:21:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200707020721.l627LAR3001590@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:53:55 -0400)
Subject: Re: GDB in C++
References: <46866F20.2010902@eagercon.com> <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:53:55 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:56:32AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> > That said, when I read and step through GDB code I see
> > significant portions which are clearly written in a way
> > which attempts to emulate classes, objects, and both
> > data and member encapsulation.
> > 
> > I also see some flaws in this emulation, some of which
> > affect performance, others which affect logic.  There
> > are also places where the encapsulation is broken.  All of
> > this makes debugging more difficult.
> 
> I've seen this complain from at least three different people.
> 
> I'm in favor of switching to C++.  I'm not going to argue about it if
> others disagree, but I'll offer to do most of the work if the
> consensus is positive.

My position on this subject has not been changed.  The more C++ code I
see, the more convinced I get that the language should die.

Mark