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

> Cc:,,
> From: Pedro Alves <>
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:04:05 +0100
> 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.

If we agree on some policy, then we don't need to worry about the
future, because the policy will determine what is going to be admitted
and what not.

> 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.

But if we agree to require C++11 starting from now, you can go ahead
with your patch, and don't even need the other dialect.  So this
sounds like a win-win solution to me.

The only other thing we need to agree is that we are not going to
switch to a C++ standard newer than C++11, and won't allow code that
doesn't compile with C++11 compilers, until the oldest compiler which
supports that newer standard is at least 3 years old (like GCC 4.8.1
is today).

Does this sound like a compromise everyone can live with?

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