From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13394 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2003 00:47:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13387 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 00:47:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 00:47:00 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 6B82ABFE6; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:47:00 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Allow C++ or C99 in sim/*? References: <3F2B02B8.3020906@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F2B02B8.3020906@redhat.com> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:15:52 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:15:52 -0400, Andrew Cagney said: > While I hate C++, making GDB developers debug C++ code would be a > good thing (TM), and there are a few chunks of the simulator code > that really shouldn't be C. I'd vote for allowing C++. But I will make my motivations clear: I don't use sim at all, so I don't really care about it per se: I just think it would be a good thing if GDB developers had to deal with C++ code more, and, if I'm working on GDB in a couple of years, I'll be pushing for allowing C++ in GDB. > Coding standards? I can help with this if we go the C++ route. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com