From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24759 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2014 13:41:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24748 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2014 13:41:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:41:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8SDfNMZ030166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:41:23 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-49.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.49]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s8SDfKYl027843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:41:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Doug Evans , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? Message-ID: <20140928134119.GA31088@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20140922183505.GA21660@host2.jankratochvil.net> <54215E55.5000408@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54215E55.5000408@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00808.txt.bz2 On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:49:41 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 09/22/2014 07:35 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:12:17 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> Is it really a pain though? > > > > 95 lines of gdbarch.* patch + its ChangeLog is really a pain compared to 1 line of C++ virtual override. [...] > But still, well, that's a bogus comparison and you know that. No; or in part - just that 95 was counted with diff context, 1 without context. > Even if GDB was written in C++, I'd > probably still want to hook this through the gdbarch object, Irrelevant, "gdbarch" probably would not exist with cheap-OO language. > Most of those 95 lines include generated > boilerplace that you'd need in C++ too. No. > You'd need to count debug dump code, No. > validation code, No. > and the new entry point in the base object, and both the declaration and the > definition of the override in the new class. Maybe 2-3 lines, not 1. That is not important. > The thing is that most of the design issues here are orthogonal to the C/C++ > axis. No. Jan