This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def?
Hi Joel,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:49:41 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I draw from Tom and I's experience with the type handling and the language
> vector. Part of the language vector and the associated complexity would be
> unnecessary if Ada was more standard, rather than some side-entity that
> needs to be plugged into the core system.
I actively maintain the counterpart dynamic types implementation for Fortran
(contrary to Ada) - archer-jankratochvil-vla. I understand it is a second
class citizen as it is not merged in FSF GDB (contrary to Ada) but I find
unfair to just make the dynamic types of Ada "the standard" and let's see what
happens next. Primarily because personally I find the DWARF expressions based
dynamic types of archer-jankratochvil-vla the more seamless solution for GDB
dynamic types in general.
> 1. Do we want to go with the propose patch series (merging the def
> files, and then simplifying a bit the code afterwards)?
>
> 2. Do we want to rename the Ada opcodes? I can do that as a third
> patch, for instance.
I do not mind the order of the chosen steps, I just did not want to happen it
as described in the previous paragraph.
Thanks,
Jan