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: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not?

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:44:16 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > Is it enough plan to justify the -Wc++-compat compatibility step?
>> > That is to update and check-in archer-ratmice-compile-Wc++-compat.
>> Not without proper review of the changes.  And since my position on
>> C++ has changed, I'd not really eager to do that.  But if -Wc++-compat
>> would make you happy, and stop pushing for switching GDB to C++,
> No matter whether C++ will happen or not -Wc++-compat is already useful
> (for the 64-bit offsets upstreaming).  This is why I ask for it on its own.
> While -Wc++-compat enables fixing the 64-bit offsets in GDB it is only like
> 1% (random guess) of GDB bugs fixes C++ enables us to do.  So the decision of
> -Wc++-compat is orthogonal to the C++ decision.
>> I'd be willing to spend some time to help.
> There is hopefully not much help needed, Matt Rice was offering to update
> archer-ratmice-compile-Wc++-compat, and I think one can safely verify the
> patch is valid (besides some eyes review) also by comparing byte-by-byte the
> compiled stripped binaries.

k, will go ahead and get started on this i've always felt we should at
least do -Wc++-compat since when doing the patch originally it did
make apparent at least one bug in gdb.

  If anyone has any particularly large change to an existing source
file, and they'd prefer I postpone work on that file until later
please let me know, it might save work for one of us or the other.

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