Re: Move GDB to C++ ?

[Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> The question I'm asking here is are we focusing on C++ as a solution,
> and mistakenly trying to rely on its features as a solution, when we
> should instead be first focusing on the design, what ever the
> implementation language?

<snip>

> If, in attempting to make these changes we find that the C
> implementation truly cumbersome then we've a compelling story for
> language change.

IMHO one of the reasons that this thread keeps coming up is that current GDB
design already begs for implementation in an OO language (witness the
home-brewed implementation of exceptions). So if one agrees with that (I
do), then it is not out of place to discuss a move to an OO language.

> This is assuming that the intent here is find ways 
> to allow greater architectural reform in GDB (and a language change is
> just an aid to that goal).  You seem to at least be agreeing with this?

I'd be surprised if anyone said no to that. :-)

But there's at least one other goal: lower the barrier to entry for would-be
GDB hackers (or one which are at the beginning of their journey and still
didn't grasp the whole picture of the GDB internals).

It has been said already that needing to learn the GDB in-house equivalent
of estabished OO features and/or idioms (like cleanups, GDB exceptions and
others) is a significant obstacle to new contributors. I agree with that.

-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center