Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not?

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 04/16/2012 07:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:48:57 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Symbol/types even are long lived objects, it's not common at all to need to
>> worry about leaks (RAII/exceptions) here.
> 
> They are and they should not be, this is what archer-jankratochvil-vla with
> dynamic types is there for and which are not well maintainable without C++.


I don't even know how to begin to respond to that.  :-)  The symbols side is perhaps
the part of a debugger that needs the most care about memory, and where you'll
most likely to see the need for POD types, and lower level handling of
memory, like the bcache.

> If GDB should stay with C then OK (although FYI I am not so in favor of it).
> But then it should be real C - therefore  without GDB cleanups, without GDB
> TRY_CATCH etc. etc., proper C code returning error codes from each function
> and each caller checking it and doing all the local cleanups by hand.


This is going backwards, and can't really be a serious proposal.

-- 
Pedro Alves