From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6351 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2012 12:57:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 6343 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2012 12:57:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:57:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB7CvY0G014417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:57:34 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-104.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.104]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB7CvSR4010022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:57:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:57:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Matt Rice Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20121207125728.GA897@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F8FD047.6030702@codesourcery.com> <20121204141708.GA28600@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201212041444.qB4EiG4L025312@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20121204145144.GA30509@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:39:27 +0100, Matt Rice wrote: > k, will go ahead and get started on this i've always felt we should at > least do -Wc++-compat That would be great, thanks. In fact I do not see any possible technical reason against -Wc++-compat, it has no disadvantages (just possibly "needless" many mechanical changes of your patch). Jan