From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29698 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 16:07:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 29626 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 16:07:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:06:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121741C6C97; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:06:54 -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 eVkIfRjmTsSQ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC231C691B; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BEAE3145616; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20120418160644.GC25623@adacore.com> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20120409190519.GA524@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F833D29.4050102@redhat.com> <20120416065456.GA30097@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8ECB72.70708@redhat.com> <20120418151553.GA16768@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8EDD7B.2010602@redhat.com> <20120418155354.GA17912@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120418155354.GA17912@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 > We can talk about the C gdbserver, I believe it can be forked from > the current codebase and removed almost everything there, including > threading support. But I do not have experience with new > architectures bootstrapping myself. I we are going to share GDBserver and GDB (understand making GDBserver a library that GDB uses), I do not think that having a forked copy of GDBserver in C is a good idea. I'd much rather we evaluate the concerns of linking with the C++ runtime, for instance. After reading the whole discussion, I think that there are not enough advantages outweighing the drawbacks for us to move to C++. Things may change in the future, but I also feel that there is too much resitance (within the group of GDB Maintainers) at this time, to make such a drastic change. I am a little bit surprised by that, since I thought only one or two of us had reservations, but clearly not so. -- Joel