From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32087 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 06:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 32078 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 06:26:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D532A96F7; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q7WZXAcOBvdN; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE442A96E8; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9DC1DE7ACD; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:26:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? Message-ID: <20080711062612.GB6132@adacore.com> References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <48766A88.1050402@earthlink.net> <200807102153.m6ALrjjm017722@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200807102153.m6ALrjjm017722@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00106.txt.bz2 (I agree with Tom: Very Brave :) > The subset of C++ that I like is pretty much that what is called C. I > don't think the benefits of using a few C++ outweighs the loss of the > ability to compile GDB with a bog standard C compiler. That would be my concern #1. I really think that it's a huge plus to be able to build GDB with a C compiler. C++ compiler are just not as common as C compilers, particularly on more exotic platforms. My other major concern is debugability - I want to make sure that if we agree on the transition, GDB will be as easy to debug as before. I am way out of my league on this, but isn't it the case that: - there's still some progress to be made to help debugging C++ in general (I might be VERY wrong on that one) - that stabs is not good enough to provide full C++ debugging support ? I think that it's premature to transition GDB to C++. I am not going to oppose patches that make the code more C++ friendly, these should be harmless and help prepare the transition if we ever decide to take that route. Also, should a consensus in favor of C++ be reached, the Steering Committee should be given an opportunity to say what they think. I suspect that the SC's stance will be similar for both GCC and GDB. -- Joel