From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3058 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2008 19:35:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 3049 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2008 19:35:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.64) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:35:06 +0000 Received: from [68.108.140.98] (helo=macbook-2.local) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KNuyN-0001sz-LO; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:35:03 -0400 Message-ID: <488F70E6.7060801@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:45:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <488F4AA7.7060001@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940eb8bea05712e883db462e4748e13b775350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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/msg00308.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > So will someone please tell, loud and clear: what do we want to do the > day after GDB is rewritten in C++? Let's suppose that we magically > fast-forward to the day after everything was refactored and GDB is > 110% pure, OO, C++ -- what will we do the next day that we cannot or > have difficulties doing today? > Speaking for myself, I hope to spend less of my time reading code, especially idiosyncratic implementations that seemed like clever ideas twenty years ago. For instance, at this very moment I'm looking at ALL_OBJFILES and friends, wondering if the introduction of multiple execs is going to impact overall performance. > Unless we can answer this question, refactoring and rewriting is > simply waste of resources, nothing less, nothing more. > Indeed, refactoring alone is pointless. The theory is supposed to be that it enables other changes. For instance, when I broke up wait_for_inferior ages ago, my immediate goal was to preserve functionality exactly; nobody understood any more how all the gotos interacted, and I didn't want to throw GDB into any more of a muddle than it had already gotten into. But once that was done, it facilitated additiional changes for async event handling, nonstop debugging, etc. Stan