From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26640 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2007 20:21:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 26631 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jul 2007 20:21:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (HELO smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com) (205.234.170.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:21:22 +0000 Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10D02F666A for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:21:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-Name: js.dnsmadeeasy X-Transit-System: In case of SPAM please contact abuse@dnsmadeeasy.com Received: from avtrex.com (unknown [67.116.42.147]) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:21:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.7.26] ([192.168.7.26]) by avtrex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:21:15 -0700 Message-ID: <46895E3B.5050807@avtrex.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:21:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB in C++ References: <46866F20.2010902@eagercon.com> <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070701205355.GC24316@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:56:32AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote: >> That said, when I read and step through GDB code I see >> significant portions which are clearly written in a way >> which attempts to emulate classes, objects, and both >> data and member encapsulation. >> >> I also see some flaws in this emulation, some of which >> affect performance, others which affect logic. There >> are also places where the encapsulation is broken. All of >> this makes debugging more difficult. > > I've seen this complain from at least three different people. > > I'm in favor of switching to C++. I'm not going to argue about it if > others disagree, but I'll offer to do most of the work if the > consensus is positive. > IIRC in the case of GCC, RMS (among others) is opposed to conversion to C++. My question is: Does RMS have any say in the matter, and what are his thoughts on it? David Daney