From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20529 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 20:40:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 20499 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 20:40:33 -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,SARE_SUB_MINUTES,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 20:39:55 +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 q3IKdsUX021524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:39:55 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IKdrCQ012735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:39:54 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: John Gilmore Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: Will C++ proponents spend 20 minutes to try what they're proposing? References: <20120418151553.GA16768@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201204181918.q3IJILcF007829@new.toad.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201204181918.q3IJILcF007829@new.toad.com> (John Gilmore's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:18:21 -0700") Message-ID: <87hawgojty.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00146.txt.bz2 >>>>> "John" == John Gilmore writes: John> Has any of the proponents even *tried* to compile and run today's GDB John> using a C++ compiler, to see what C constructs that it currently uses John> will be rejected by the C++ compiler? Yeah. Also with -Wc++-compat. John> Recompiling the C code in C++ is the approach you're proposing to John> take, right? Or do you propose that we compile some source files with John> a C compiler and others with a C++ compiler? No, please see the plan that I posted upthread. It lays out exactly what we propose. http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2012-04/msg00044.html Search for "concrete transition proposal". John> When I configure gdb-7.4 with C++ and make it, it fails pretty early John> here in libiberty: We'd only convert gdb, not libiberty, bfd, etc. John> PS: When did g++ start outputting non-ascii (Unicode) backquotes John> and forward-quotes in its error messages? That's truly ugly. Look John> at the compiler output in Emacs, for example. There's some long threads about this all over GNUdom. I can't remember when, it seems like a long time ago now. Tom