Re: Move GDB to C++ ?

[Salvatore Lionetti <salvatorelionetti at yahoo dot it>]

Hi to all,

i'm looking in symbol management and dwarf module.

- i think now is the time to refactor, expecially of interfaces between subsystem
- Language should be a secondary  issue, also if for example try cacth is better if offered by host language;)
- I'm available to work to same piece of code, expecially on symbol management.

Have a good day

--- Mer 30/7/08, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> ha scritto:

> Da: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Oggetto: Re: Move GDB to C++ ?
> A: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Data: Mercoledì 30 luglio 2008, 09:18
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> From:  Vladimir Prus
> <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> >> Date:  Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:28:05 +0400
> >> 
> >> 1. GDB is made compiled with C++ compiler, with
> resulting errors removed.
> >> 2. I refactor struct value, and folks get to
> comment if the resulting code
> >> is better, or worse, than what we have.
> >> 
> >> Comments?
> > 
> > My only comment is a question: what for?  I simply
> don't see the
> > intended purpose or the goal of this.
> > 
> > I happen to manage software projects for a living, and
> whenever we
> > need to upgrade or change some of our tools, it is
> always because we
> > need to do something that is impossible or very
> inconvenient with the
> > existing ones.  We never do it out of some abstract
> wish of "improving
> > the design" or "refactoring" for their
> own sake.
> > 
> > So will someone please tell, loud and clear: what do
> we want to do the
> > day after GDB is rewritten in C++?  Let's suppose
> that we magically
> > fast-forward to the day after everything was
> refactored and GDB is
> > 110% pure, OO, C++ -- what will we do the next day
> that we cannot or
> > have difficulties doing today?
> 
> As you surely know, most languages are Turing-complete, so
> you can
> do everything in any language, including assembler. The
> goal, 
> purely, is to spend less time fighting with the language,
> and more 
> time doing useful things.
> 
> > Unless we can answer this question, refactoring and
> rewriting is
> > simply waste of resources, nothing less, nothing more.
> 
> And here, you also surely know what is generally goal of
> refactoring --
> to make code simpler and more amendable for future change.
> This naturally
> means that you need either some immediate change to make,
> or general
> idea what will block many future changes. I do think that
> struct value
> needs refactoring -- because I know that adding new kind of
> value was
> a pain in current codebase. I do think that target stack
> needs cleanup,
> because we ran in some inconveniences during non-stop work,
> and because
> multi-process work will have to change it seriously. 
> 
> Those areas do need to be refactored to be hackable-on, and
> such refactoring
> better make use of a language suited for OOP -- which those
> areas try to
> approximate using C, now.
> 
> - Volodya


      Posta, news, sport, oroscopo: tutto in una sola pagina. 
Crea l&#39;home page che piace a te!
www.yahoo.it/latuapagina