This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] constify to_attach
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:55:09 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] constify to_attach
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1400696455-29563-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <87mwebhsc2 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <20140521212227 dot GN22822 at adacore dot com> <874n0ihl1c dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <20140521220529 dot GP22822 at adacore dot com>
Joel> I searched the GDB wiki about C99, and there were no hits. I am
Joel> wondering if we should be starting a list of C99 features we think
Joel> would be worthwhile to allow. This one would definitely be on my list!
I like designated init, "//" comments, varargs macros, "for (int i = ...",
_Bool, and even declaring variables at point of use (but I know others
dislike this one).
I see C99 as a convenience upgrade. None of those things will markedly
improve gdb's quality, they may just make the hacking marginally nicer.
For me of course C99 is the runner-up choice ...
Joel> Perhaps we can also list some of the issues that would prevent us
Joel> from adopting a subset of C99 (Eg: fear if missing checks against
Joel> disallowed features)?
IIRC there was some concern about library issues.
Or maybe that GCC doesn't implement all the IEEE additions?
I don't really remember now. It's in the list archives.
Tom