This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: FYI, I'm back on the C++ camp now.
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Matt Rice <ratmice at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "gdb\ at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:55:53 -0600
- Subject: Re: FYI, I'm back on the C++ camp now.
- References: <5203EC2D dot 5070709 at redhat dot com> <CACTLOFpzYMM884NRE1i8Hif-175ChZYp9U7c+2Hsb-63pdNkrA at mail dot gmail dot com>
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Rice <ratmice@gmail.com> writes:
Matt> I still haven't mustered up motivations for this... where the main
Matt> issue is that of nested structures,
Matt> both c, and c++ support nested structures but incompatibly, the c
Matt> compatible subset of c++ does not.
Matt> this in means de-nesting struct foo { struct bar { } } like
Matt> interfaces, which I would probably advocate skipping and never fully
Matt> compiling with -Wc++-compat rather than denesting all of the
Matt> structures and putting them back together (in the case of a move to
Matt> c++)...
Matt> and given the ugliness with denesting all of gdb's structures I
Matt> figured someone would object to that anyways were we to stay at
Matt> -Wc++-compat as I don't really think it helps the code clarity.
FWIW I think denesting them is fine.
Usually if they have a tag it means they're referred to by other code.
So treating them globally makes sense -- it is how the code already
works, it is just written in a goofy way.
Tom