From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7978 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2008 15:02:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 7905 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2008 15:02:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 27198 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2008 15:02:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Aug 2008 15:02:31 -0000 Message-ID: <48932580.3000405@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:02:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: drow@false.org, eliz@gnu.org, vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <20080801131312.GA14712@caradoc.them.org> <200808011352.m71Dq1iY027637@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200808011352.m71Dq1iY027637@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Guys, can we please stop this! These discussions are now taking up > almost all the time I have to hack on GDB. I feel obliged to take > part in them because I see them as a threat for the platforms I care > about, and the way GDB is shipped on those platform. But I really > hate it. > I agree, seems pretty much beat to death at this point. I originally brought it up because I wanted to get a sense of where everybody was at these days. People's attitudes toward programming languages do change, but not because of mailing list discussion. > More concretely. On OpenBSD we build GDB as a native debugger on all > our platforms. Some of these platforms still use GCC 2.95.3, because > later versions are slower, have a bigger memory footprint and have > more bugs, at least as far as the C compiler is concerned. Others use > GCC 3.3.5 for much the same reason. This is unlikely to change soon, > especially if GCC is going to be rewritten in C++. Rewriting GDB in > C++ is bad news for those platforms because GCC 2.95.3 is not a very > good C++ compiler and ships with an outdated STL library. I don't > think exception handling works reliably on all these platforms. > Things will get even slower and will probably require more memory than > some of my machines have. > This sounds like a good litmus test actually. Either ensure that GDB continues to run, and reasonably well, on OpenBSD, or drop OpenBSD as a supported native. > I don't think it is acceptable to effectively drop support for a > platform for which there is a fairly active developer. > Perhaps you'll get some company, if C++ fans set up OpenBSD systems so as to see what language features they can expect to work. :-) Stan