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: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?

On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:49:41 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 07:35 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:12:17 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> Is it really a pain though?
> > 
> > 95 lines of gdbarch.* patch + its ChangeLog is really a pain compared to 1 line of C++ virtual override.
> But still, well, that's a bogus comparison and you know that.

No; or in part - just that 95 was counted with diff context, 1 without context.

> Even if GDB was written in C++, I'd
> probably still want to hook this through the gdbarch object,

Irrelevant, "gdbarch" probably would not exist with cheap-OO language.

> Most of those 95 lines include generated
> boilerplace that you'd need in C++ too.


> You'd need to count debug dump code,


> validation code,


> and the new entry point in the base object, and both the declaration and the
> definition of the override in the new class.

Maybe 2-3 lines, not 1. That is not important.

> The thing is that most of the design issues here are orthogonal to the C/C++
> axis.



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