This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not?
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org, tromey at redhat dot com, ratmice at gmail dot com, yao at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:51:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not?
- References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4F8FD047.email@example.com> <20121204141708.GA28600@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201212041444.qB4EiG4L025312@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
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.