From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23029 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 16:15:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 23018 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 16:15:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:15:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC572A972B; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fDPxvc9eq9v6; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0DD2A9720; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <487B7B96.1050300@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:15:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Prus , Robert Dewar , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <487B52D8.1020802@adacore.com> <200807141953.31008.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080714161228.GA3833@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080714161228.GA3833@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: 2008-07/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:53:30PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> I think that in this case, the most important argument is that GDB already >> uses most of the features C++ has to offer -- except in non-standard and >> undocumented way. Switch to C++ will make that better. The only price to >> pay is requiring C++ compiler -- and given that the GNU project makes GCC, >> I just don't see the issue. > > Consider requiring the C++ runtime, then... this would be a problem > for CodeSourcery in the same way that it would be for AdaCore. > Solvable in both cases, and I have no qualms about solving it, but it > will be some work. Right, indeed, I am not saying this cannot be done, just that the infrastructure work needed, especially on multiple targets, is not trivial. >