From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29279 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2011 06:06:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 29267 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jun 2011 06:06:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C++ draft From: Yao Qi To: Tom Tromey Cc: archer@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2011-q2/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Yao> In your concrete plan, IIUC, your plan is about converting GDB to C++ > Yao> *partially*, instead of re-write GDB *completely*. =A0Is that > Yao> correct? > > Yes. =A0I don't think a complete rewrite is either practical or advisable. > Instead I think an incremental approach is best. > Tom, Thanks for your clarification. I agree. > Now, one possible criticism is that such incremental changes often peter > out. =A0And this is definitely a possible problem -- after exceptions and > python reference counting, what do we care enough about to transform? =A0I > mean, it is easy to think of areas that can be C++-ified, but are the > benefits enough to justify the work? =A0Would we be better off just > writing GCC plugins to check our changes? =A0I tend to think the benefits > are worth the cost, but it is hard to know this with any certainty. > I agree that it is hard to say which part should be first C++-ified, or C++-ified easily. When the first step (python reference counting and exception) is done, we may have a clear view of which part should be C++-ified. > Yao> I don't think C and C++ co-existance is a problem, or, your plan is > Yao> about "make good use of C++ to replace some bad and error-prone stuf= fs > Yao> in GDB, and keep the rest of GDB as it is". =A0Is it right? > > Yes. That is good to me. > > Yao> Just want to know clearly what GDB will be after your plan is perfor= med. > > I think we will always have parts in C. =A0At the very least BFD, and if > you push forward on the gdbserver library project, then the shared bits > there as well. Right, that is the reason I ask do we plan to move GDBServer to C++. This makes sense to me. --=20 Yao Qi