From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12362 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 14:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 12342 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 14:11:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:11:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IEB0kA005146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:11:00 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IEAwUu002424; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8ECB72.70708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:11:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20120409190519.GA524@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F833D29.4050102@redhat.com> <20120416065456.GA30097@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120416065456.GA30097@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 On 04/16/2012 07:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:48:57 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Symbol/types even are long lived objects, it's not common at all to need to >> worry about leaks (RAII/exceptions) here. > > They are and they should not be, this is what archer-jankratochvil-vla with > dynamic types is there for and which are not well maintainable without C++. I don't even know how to begin to respond to that. :-) The symbols side is perhaps the part of a debugger that needs the most care about memory, and where you'll most likely to see the need for POD types, and lower level handling of memory, like the bcache. > If GDB should stay with C then OK (although FYI I am not so in favor of it). > But then it should be real C - therefore without GDB cleanups, without GDB > TRY_CATCH etc. etc., proper C code returning error codes from each function > and each caller checking it and doing all the local cleanups by hand. This is going backwards, and can't really be a serious proposal. -- Pedro Alves