From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7122 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2012 14:44:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7098 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2012 14:44:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:44:35 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qB4EiIvp002960; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:18 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id qB4EiG4L025312; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201212041444.qB4EiG4L025312@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com CC: gdb@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, ratmice@gmail.com, yao@codesourcery.com In-reply-to: <20121204141708.GA28600@host2.jankratochvil.net> (message from Jan Kratochvil on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:17:08 +0100) Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F8FD047.6030702@codesourcery.com> <20121204141708.GA28600@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:17:08 +0100 > From: Jan Kratochvil > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:43:51 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: > [...] > > maybe, we can start from something easy and less-controvesy, > > > > On 04/05/2012 04:47 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > 1. Modify GDB so it can be compiled with -Wc++-compat. > > > This would be the first patch series. There is already an archer > > > branch for this. > > > > Modify GDB as well as GDBserver/IPA so they can be compiled with > > -Wc++-compat. > > > > > 2. Then, change GDB to compile with a C++ compiler (-Wc++-compat is > > > not complete). This would be the second patch series. > > > > > > > Change to use C++ compiler to compile GDB, GDBserver and IPA. If this > > is too aggressive, we can use C++ compiler to compile GDB and keep C > > compiler to compiler GDBserver and IPA. Sources in gdb/common/ will be > > compiled by C compiler and C++ compiler respectively. Is it possible? > > For one of the justifications of C++ > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2012-11/msg00070.html > speficially to upstream the 64-bit inferior offsets/sizes as present in many > patches posted by Siddhesh Poyarekar : > > It would be enough to have GDB (neither gdbserver nor IPA) compilable as C++. > Explicit configure option would be required. It would be used to create the > 64-bit offsets patch and then also during nightly regression testing to catch > possible following 64-bit offsets type violations/regressions. > > > Is it enough plan to justify the -Wc++-compat compatibility step? > That is to update and check-in archer-ratmice-compile-Wc++-compat. Not without proper review of the changes. And since my position on C++ has changed, I'd not really eager to do that. But if -Wc++-compat would make you happy, and stop pushing for switching GDB to C++, I'd be willing to spend some time to help.