From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7390 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2015 12:35:37 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7380 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2015 12:35:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:35 +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 t1DCZUq9025435 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:35:30 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1DCZS36008535; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:35:29 -0500 Message-ID: <54DDEF90.4090209@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:35:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: fwd: is LLDB a threat to GDB's success? #999 References: <20150213110919.GN5709@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20150213110919.GN5709@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 I should perhaps add that the opinion expressed was mine alone and does not represent the opinions of my past, present, and future employer(s). :-) Pedro alves wrote: >> - Good C++ support. >> >> This stems from modularity. lldb reuses llvm/clang (the C/C++ compiler >> frontend) for expression evaluation/parsing, thus it has excellent >> C++ support. GDB has its own built in C++ expression parser, which >> is poor. GNU of course already has excellent parsers inside GCC/G++, >> but unfortunately, for years GCC did not really welcome modularity >> and reuse, and that now bites back, hard. As the C++ world shifts >> more and more to C++11/C++14, the more GDB is bitten by this, >> as it doesn't understand basic new features that have been added >> to the language. LLDB gains support for such new features for >> free whenever clang gains support for the same. This of course was missing lots of context, but, I'll add that GDB's not actually sitting and waiting here. There's a project going on already that is exactly about reusing GCC/G++ in GDB. The first step has landed in GDB 7.9 already, in the form of the "compile" command, which compiles, injects, and executes a C expression, making use of GCC through a plugin. See: https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Compiling-and-Injecting-Code.html We're discussing next steps for the project here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2015-02/msg00019.html Everyone's more than welcome to join! Thanks, Pedro Alves