From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4360 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 15:30:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 4280 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 15:30:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:30:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 23034 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2008 15:29:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 Jul 2008 15:29:59 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:30:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Andrew Cagney References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <48776DC1.1070606@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <48776DC1.1070606@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807111629.59334.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00125.txt.bz2 A Friday 11 July 2008 15:27:13, Andrew Cagney write: > This does, I think, raise an interesting question: is, or should, be > being the a good (best?) C++ debugger be a high priority for GDB? I can't think of why anyone would object to good changes to make GDB be a better C++ debugger. (Good in the sense of technically sound, and doesn't regress support for other languages in unfixable ways). If someone, or some entity wants to make his/its priority making that happen, that's a different issue. GDB doesn't need to be the "best" C++ debugger in the world to debug itself. Unless we consider GDB's support so awful that we won't be able to debug GDB -- I don't, and I support the change --, I consider that goal independent of the switch to implementing GDB in C++. -- Pedro Alves