This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA 09/22] Remove make_cleanup_restore_current_ui

On 10/13/2016 03:46 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> And I'm again asking whether this is about this single patch, or about
> a more general policy.  I assume that it's the latter, in which case
> we are not talking about a single small utility, we are talking about
> all the code that will be in the future admitted to GDB with the same
> premise.  It is the policy that I object to, not a single exception.

I don't have an answer simply because I don't know what we'll
need in the future.  All I know right now that we sorely need
an owning smart pointer.  And for this particular case, I think
it makes a ton of sense to go dual dialect.

Maybe for other utilities that we may find missing in C++03,
we may decide to write replacements based on what C++11 or
later does, if they exist, and always use our replacement
code, even when compiled in C++11 mode.  In the owning smart
pointer case, there's a benefit to using the C++11 version.
For other things, there probably isn't.

So I don't plan on doing anything like this in the future.
It's hard to set a policy when all you have is one

If I knew the future, I'd play the lottery.

Pedro Alves

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]