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: Move GDB to C++ ?

Mark Kettenis wrote:

>> X-Spam-Check-By:
>> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:13:12 -0400
>> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <>
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 09:42:28PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > > From:  Vladimir Prus <>
>> > > Date:  Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:10:37 +0400
>> > > 
>> > > I think this discussion went a bit wrong way -- trying to convince folks that
>> > > *investing effort* in converting to C++ is justified. However, I don't think
>> > > the proposal is about making folks not interested in C++ doing any work -- the
>> > > proposal is about allowing folks who do some specific work, and want to make
>> > > use of additional features C++ provides, to use those features, while not imposing
>> > > significant problems on the rest of contributors.
>> > 
>> > Your being busy refactoring does impose a significant problem on me.
>> > We are members of the same team, so how you use your time while on the
>> > team is important to me.
>> Could you please expand on this idea?
>> Certainly the event of refactoring will have a big impact on all
>> contributors.  That's at the moment of commit, and not before.  So if
>> you think it's actively harmful, that's a different issue from the
>> one Vladimir is talking about here.
>> GDB is a GNU project, driven by volunteers and sponsored contributors.
>> And the sponsored contributors are volunteers from the perspective of
>> anyone outside the sponsoring organization.  I don't understand the
>> objection to other people choosing to invest effort on something, even
>> if you think it's unimportant.  Volunteer projects go where their
>> volunteers want to take them!
>> And I think one of the bit structural issues in GDB is that it's hard
>> for even active volunteers to take it to new places.  I want to make
>> that easier.
> [ This is not directed at Daniel in particular, his message was just
>   happened to be a convenient one to reply to. ]
> Guys, can we please stop this!  These discussions are now taking up
> almost all the time I have to hack on GDB.  I feel obliged to take
> part in them because I see them as a threat for the platforms I care
> about, and the way GDB is shipped on those platform.  But I really
> hate it.
> More concretely.  On OpenBSD we build GDB as a native debugger on all
> our platforms.  Some of these platforms still use GCC 2.95.3, because
> later versions are slower, have a bigger memory footprint and have
> more bugs, at least as far as the C compiler is concerned.  Others use
> GCC 3.3.5 for much the same reason.  This is unlikely to change soon,
> especially if GCC is going to be rewritten in C++.  Rewriting GDB in
> C++ is bad news for those platforms because GCC 2.95.3 is not a very
> good C++ compiler and ships with an outdated STL library.  I don't
> think exception handling works reliably on all these platforms.

I believe that for GDB purposes, 2.95.3 is just fine. In fact, 2.95 is
exactly the release where gcc's C++ support became OK.

> Things will get even slower and will probably require more memory than
> some of my machines have.

Do you have exact value, or estimate, or how much the performance and memory
consumption will suffer?

- Volodya

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