From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29140 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 20:31:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 29003 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 20:31:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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 20:30:53 +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 q3IKUqWE010614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:30:52 -0400 Received: from barimba (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 q3IKUpi6009518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:30:52 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Pedro Alves , 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> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120416065456.GA30097@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:54:56 +0200") Message-ID: <87wr5cok90.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00140.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> If GDB should stay with C then OK (although FYI I am not so in Jan> favor of it). But then it should be real C - therefore without GDB Jan> cleanups, without GDB TRY_CATCH etc. etc., proper C code returning Jan> error codes from each function and each caller checking it and Jan> doing all the local cleanups by hand. I can't tell if you're joking here, but I don't think it would be very practical to do this. It would be an enormous effort. I have wondered whether we could limit gdbserver and the shared code in this way. But I assume that is impractical as well; and now I am more interested in measuring the actual impact of C++, rather than assuming it is very bad. Tom