From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13581 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2008 20:40:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 13570 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2008 20:40:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:40:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6AKe0Cr009604; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:40:00 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6AKdu2k001200; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:39:56 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6AKds0s004346; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:39:55 -0400 Message-ID: <48767395.7080905@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Koning CC: stanshebs@earthlink.net, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <48766A88.1050402@earthlink.net> <18550.27427.430241.185251@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <18550.27427.430241.185251@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 Paul Koning wrote: >>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: >>>>>> > > Stan> Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> I think this is an absolutely retarded idea. C++ is a horrible > >> programming language. > >> > Stan> Okay... so, uh, since C++ is basically a superset of C, > Stan> presumably the horribleness you are thinking of relates to > Stan> specific extensions. > > Maybe not. C is horrible, too. But I'm afraid it's unlikely that GDB > will get ported to, say, Modula-2. > True, on the other hand we do now have an example of what a true object oriented debugging and monitoring tool (written in Java) can look like. While C and C++ have serious limitations (I'm being polite :-), I think, for GDB, C++ does offer a way forward for modernising its architecture. The one question I would pose though, is bashing up the current GDB code base until it compiles with C++ a reasonable approach? Each time C++ has been suggested previously, that has been the proposed path forward, and each time it has not moved (I've even tried it my self). Perhaps, instead, we should approach this more on a component basis - stack, expr, type, proc, debug-info, ..., and convert each chunk in turn. And also make use of newer technology such as some of the technology that accompanied GOLD. This would suggest working in parallel, in a src/gdbxx (gdb++) directory; while this is of course longer and harder, I believe we'll see better results. -