From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22473 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2012 14:52:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22435 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2012 14:52:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:51:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB4Eprr5005690 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:51:53 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-104.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.104]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB4EpjHH002416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:51:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, ratmice@gmail.com, yao@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20121204145144.GA30509@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F8FD047.6030702@codesourcery.com> <20121204141708.GA28600@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201212041444.qB4EiG4L025312@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201212041444.qB4EiG4L025312@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:44:16 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Is it enough plan to justify the -Wc++-compat compatibility step? > > That is to update and check-in archer-ratmice-compile-Wc++-compat. > > Not without proper review of the changes. And since my position on > C++ has changed, I'd not really eager to do that. But if -Wc++-compat > would make you happy, and stop pushing for switching GDB to C++, No matter whether C++ will happen or not -Wc++-compat is already useful (for the 64-bit offsets upstreaming). This is why I ask for it on its own. While -Wc++-compat enables fixing the 64-bit offsets in GDB it is only like 1% (random guess) of GDB bugs fixes C++ enables us to do. So the decision of -Wc++-compat is orthogonal to the C++ decision. > I'd be willing to spend some time to help. There is hopefully not much help needed, Matt Rice was offering to update archer-ratmice-compile-Wc++-compat, and I think one can safely verify the patch is valid (besides some eyes review) also by comparing byte-by-byte the compiled stripped binaries. Thanks, Jan