This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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]

Allow C++ or C99 in sim/*?


Hello,

Back in '95ish, I adopted ISO C 90 as its programming language for PSIM. My decision was based on two assumptions: a C++ compiler would be more buggy than C; the C language would be easier for a compiler to optimize than C++; no one in their right mind still used K&R C. Over time, the ISO C 90 assumption was gradually extended to other simulators (via sim/igen and sim/common) and that led to the sim/ directory requiring ISO C. This was all well before gdb/ adopted ISO C 90. History has shown this to be a good decision.

Now, many years later, I think its time to revisit this:

Should the simulator directories allow more modern languages? I can see several options:

- C99 which would allow C++ comments:
	// a comment
and declarations anywhere:
	foo (); int i; bar ()
and access to int32 et.al. types.  What else?

- C++ which would also allow access to objects and (ulgh?) templates (replacement for the sim-endian macro stuff?)

- Oh what the heck, Java and gcj ...

C99 should be a done deal. While I hate C++, making GDB developers debug C++ code would be a good thing (TM), and there are a few chunks of the simulator code that really shouldn't be C. Java would be, well, interesting.

Thoughts? Coding standards?

Andrew


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