From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17466 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 15:54:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 17397 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 15:54:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 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 15:53:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IFrwJO001956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:53:58 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-78.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.78]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3IFrsas026424 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:53:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:54:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20120418155354.GA17912@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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> <4F8ECB72.70708@redhat.com> <20120418151553.GA16768@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F8EDD7B.2010602@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F8EDD7B.2010602@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00118.txt.bz2 On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:27:55 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > I don't like the prospect of a fragmented GDB with important parts in C and > others in C++, OK, we can therefore target only this problem. I do not think we should seriously code anything in C. Primarily one can argue there will be already some problem GDB itself will require C++ environment so that one can no longer run GDB in the early system bootstrap phases. I think this disadvantage everyone has already agreed with for the C++ benefits for GDB. So there remain only the very niche cases of bootstrapping system without C++ yet and having connected rich system with GDB so that one wants to use GDBSERVER. I believe some very simplistic C gdbserver can be used for such case. I admit I never bootstrapped such new system myself. I believe only few people in the world do so, AFAIK new architectures are no longer being created so commonly as before even for those few toolchain developers. Making GDB crashing for every GNU/Linux end-user developer just to make easier bootstrapping system for the few toolchain developers is IMNSHO not worth it. I do not repeat all the Bugs here leading to GDB crashes I get continuously from ABRT (bugreporting system) in Bugzilla due to missing automatic code sanity checking possible with C++. We can talk about the C gdbserver, I believe it can be forked from the current codebase and removed almost everything there, including threading support. But I do not have experience with new architectures bootstrapping myself. Thanks, Jan