From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1568 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2013 21:23:00 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1547 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2013 21:23:00 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KHOP_THREADED,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:22:58 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6GLMlaR032092; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id r6GLMlMx012078; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: tromey@redhat.com CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:51:36 -0600) Subject: Re: C99 References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:51:36 -0600 > > I'd like to draw attention to this patch: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-06/msg00808.html > > This points out that gdb has been unconditionally using a GCC extension, > apparently since at least 2010; the patch introducing the varargs define > in tracepoint.c was 7c56ce7 (2010-04-09). > > The patch proposes replacing this with the corresponding C99 construct. > > So, I'd like to propose we allow the use of C99 in gdb. In particular I > think we ought to require a C99 preprocessor -- enabling this particular > patch to go in and also allowing the use of "//" comments. Perhaps it is time to move on and start requiring a C99 compiler for GDB. But "//" comments are offensive to real C programmers! ;) Seriously though. This points out that such a switch has some consequences for our coding standards. We have a fairly consistent coding style in GDB, which makes it easy for people to move around in the codebase without getting distracted by the "looks" of the code. I think it's worth some effort to keep it that way. And allowing "//" comments isn't going to help. I'd vote for not using them at all. However, a more important C99 "misfeature" that affects the coding standard is the possibility to declare varaibles anywhere in the code. We should not allow this, except for declaring loop variables in a for() statement.