From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4339 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2008 15:17:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 4325 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2008 15:17:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:16:48 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA3898397; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:16:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB9198243; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:16:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOwN3-0005tJ-Qk; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:16:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? Message-ID: <20080801151645.GA22348@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <20080801131312.GA14712@caradoc.them.org> <200808011352.m71Dq1iY027637@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:05:14PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > More concretely. On OpenBSD we build GDB as a native debugger on all > > our platforms. Some of these platforms still use GCC 2.95.3, because > > later versions are slower, have a bigger memory footprint and have > > more bugs, at least as far as the C compiler is concerned. Others use > > GCC 3.3.5 for much the same reason. This is unlikely to change soon, > > especially if GCC is going to be rewritten in C++. Rewriting GDB in > > C++ is bad news for those platforms because GCC 2.95.3 is not a very > > good C++ compiler and ships with an outdated STL library. I don't > > think exception handling works reliably on all these platforms. > > I believe that for GDB purposes, 2.95.3 is just fine. In fact, 2.95 is > exactly the release where gcc's C++ support became OK. The part of this that concerns me is "I don't think exception handling works reliably on all these platforms." I'm not sure what we can say about that. We didn't dig this hole, but it exists none the less. It really bothers me to be stuck writing GNU software in 2008 that can't rely on GNU compilers released in the last six years. We can set up auto-testing on OpenBSD x86 without much difficulty. But that's not where the problems are going to occur. It'll be the less-mainstream platforms like vax and hppa. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery