From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12953 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 16:31:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 12941 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 16:31:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from oarmail.oarcorp.com (HELO OARmail.OARCORP.com) (67.63.146.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:31:19 +0000 Received: from iceland.oarcorp.com (192.168.1.171) by OARmail.OARCORP.com (192.168.2.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: <4F8EEC55.7080008@oarcorp.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Sherrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120314 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Jan Kratochvil , Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20120409190519.GA524@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F833D29.4050102@redhat.com> <20120416065456.GA30097@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8ECB72.70708@redhat.com> <20120418151553.GA16768@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8EDD7B.2010602@redhat.com> <20120418155354.GA17912@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120418160644.GC25623@adacore.com> <20120418161315.GC18303@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120418162255.GD25623@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120418162255.GD25623@adacore.com> 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2012 11:22 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> What can change? C++ usage is already decreasing, most of the new >> development is in Java. If C++ is already not suitable it will never >> be. > Many things can change. Just one example: The constraints placed > on GDB/GDBserver could change and lead to a more positive terrain > for C++ adoption. Maybe, one day, the conditions will be right. > Just not today. > Wading in late .. but is the gdbserver intended to run on an embedded RTOS with just threads? If so, then as a broad over generalization, it would be a shame to push any C++ run-time requirements on a target that is likely resource constrained. Plus some of the smaller gcc targets do not support C++. C++ for tools that will always run on a development host is a technical programming benefits decision. But please remember that host does not universally equal target. What may be right for one side may not be for the other. -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985