New branch ``drow-cplus-branch''

New branch ``drow-cplus-branch''

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

I've created a branch for the C++ and namespace improvements David and I
were discussing.  I've committed two patches to it, also, which I'll send
along to gdb-patches in a moment.  The name of the branch is
``drow-cplus-branch''.  The policy for this branch is:

1.  Committing things
1a.  If you're me, hey, it's your branch.  Commit things.  Send a copy to
     the list.
1b.  If you're someone else, hey, it's a development branch.  Commit things. 
     But first send them to gdb-patches (GCC has the convention of prefixing
     with [branchname], I recommend that) so that I can OK them.
     I'll probably OK them.  I just want to keep tabs on what goes on the
     branch.

2.  Recording things
    There's a file named ChangeLog.cplus on the branch.  Write proper
    ChangeLog entres at all times.  Put them in that file instead of the
    normal ChangeLog.  This'll make merges simpler.

Right now the testsuite results on the branch are probably dead in the
water.  I've added changes which we don't have all of the infrastructure
for, because without them I can't work out what the right infrastructure is. 
It will get better in time, I promise.  Mostly once I figure out how it
should look!

I'm considering a user setting for c-typeprint: auto, like the v2 demangler
puts out, like the v3 demangler puts out, like we currently print.  Once I
finish the unit test harness I keep posting about I'll probably implement
this, and write the necessary unit tests to make sure it all works.  This
will make testing much easier, because I can unit test the type printer in
all four modes and then write C++ tests only in one of the constant modes.
All the fuzziness with {\((void|)\)} and { ?&} can go away after that.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: New branch ``drow-cplus-branch''

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> I've created a branch for the C++ and namespace improvements David and I
> were discussing.

Thanks for working on this.

I'd like to suggest that you try to document the necessary details in 
gdbint.texinfo as well, as you go.  (If you need help in looking through 
your Texinfo, send the patches to me.)  That way, we won't face a huge 
problem of documenting a large body of new code when the branch is merged 
with HEAD.

Just my $0.02.