From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28734 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2012 10:47:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28720 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2012 10:47:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RCVD_VIA_APNIC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from icp-osb-irony-out5.external.iinet.net.au (HELO icp-osb-irony-out5.external.iinet.net.au) (203.59.1.221) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:47:25 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkDANXuyU9yxku0/2dsb2JhbAANOLBNgkSEKgEBAQQ4QAEQCw0LCRYPCQMCAQIBRRMBBwK/FIsRhhADmw2Mdg Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.0.10]) ([114.198.75.180]) by icp-osb-irony-out5.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 18:47:23 +0800 Message-ID: <4FC9EF3A.8000701@netspace.net.au> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:47:00 -0000 From: Russell Shaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101030 Icedove/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <20120526155005.GA30091@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4FC9BA2F.7030202@netspace.net.au> <20120602071301.GA20548@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120602071301.GA20548@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On 02/06/12 17:13, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:01:03 +0200, Russell Shaw wrote: >> Hitting my F9 "compile" button would result in an annoying >> half-second delay when compiling simple programs using the STL >> (years ago when i did C++). Self written utility libraries such as >> those already done in C in gdb could avoid that. > > Saving that half-second discourages contributors by using non-standard > libraries for the same basic functionality they already know well from C++. A friend said when he was using the full STL, the delay was 8 seconds. It's completely intolerable when one is used to incremental editing/compiling/running with instant C compilations. Wouldn't there be far more existing GDB contributors that would understand C++'ified gdb libraries, than C++ coders that know anything about the internals of gdb? General STL libraries could be ok to a degree, where there is little performance or resource impact, and where it simplifies current code.