Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not?

Pedro Alves
2012-04-18T14:11:17Z

On 04/16/2012 07:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:48:57 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Symbol/types even are long lived objects, it's not common at all to need to
>> worry about leaks (RAII/exceptions) here.
>
> They are and they should not be, this is what archer-jankratochvil-vla with
> dynamic types is there for and which are not well maintainable without C++.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to that. :-) The symbols side is perhaps
the part of a debugger that needs the most care about memory, and where you'll
most likely to see the need for POD types, and lower level handling of
memory, like the bcache.

> If GDB should stay with C then OK (although FYI I am not so in favor of it).
> But then it should be real C - therefore without GDB cleanups, without GDB
> TRY_CATCH etc. etc., proper C code returning error codes from each function
> and each caller checking it and doing all the local cleanups by hand.

This is going backwards, and can't really be a serious proposal.

--
Pedro Alves