From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44790 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2017 12:31:29 -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 42722 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2017 12:31:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:sk:RSA_AES X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:31:23 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddbk7-0002hb-IN for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:31:21 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44965) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddbk7-0002hQ-Df; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:30:15 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4361 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ddbk6-0001EB-M8; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:30:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: <8360e3y0qc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Yao Qi CC: phi.debian@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <86d18b3732.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Yao Qi on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:28:33 +0100) Subject: Re: Will GDB be rewritten in C++ (again) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <86d18b3732.fsf@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 > From: Yao Qi > Cc: "gdb\@sourceware.org" > Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:28:33 +0100 > > Phi Debian writes: > > > Now I retrieved some bandwith and consider going back on GDB dev, but > > still today I am reluctant with C++ > > > > So my question is, does this rewrite of GDB in C++ has been shelved or > > is is still going? > > Phi, > We don't _rewrite_ GDB in C++. Actually, we do, AFAICT. I've seen many patch series lately whose main intent is to C++-ify the codebase. > Most of the code is still written in C, and the code base isn't > changed dramatically. That depends on the definition of "dramatically". I think changes are quite significant.