On 13/8/19 3:10 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > sorry for the rush, Sorry for the delay, I have a client demo this week I am helping with.
> but what do you think of this patch? Why not C++? The rtems-tools repo has strong support for C++ and it brings a range of benefits, for example no need to code call handlers at a low level, containers so no need for us to include and maintain trace/record/tree.h, and more. When I see us adding code like `tree.h` I have in the back of my mind the long term support issues it brings while a `std::map` is maintained for us. GNU projects like gdb and gcc have moved to C++ and of course llvm is C++ and this is for good reason. I provide these examples in the hope this does not start a C vs C++ debate. > I would like to > integrate the tracing work of the GSoC project and this patch is a blocking > point. I understand. I am excited by the work that has been done here and what you are doing. It is taking all my will power to not read the ARM debug trace section of an ARM TRM as I think that hardware is ripe for integration with this code base and set of tools. A C++ framework in rtemstoolkit would be really helpful if I do as it would grow what we have rather than us collecting isolated C programs. I also understand and appreciate the limited time we all have so I am happy to hear how you see the host side progressing over time and how it fits into our ecosystem. I would also like to hear what others think. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
