C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Debugging support and freestanding (P2546)

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 23:10:48 -0600
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 4:56 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
<grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 3:04 PM Ben Craig <ben.craig_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > If you want is_debugger_present to be a portable spelling that enables the user to implement it, then I think what you want is a replaceable function, like operator new / delete. I think I could support the idea of always having an is_debugger_present entry with an always false response, but allow the user to replace that implementation with a good one. This could allow portable spelling for libraries, portable implementations for freestanding toolchain vendors, and portably plugging in to the facility by users.
> That is a really good idea. I like it! It could easily be done as a
> followup paper also. Since it's just adding to the
> [replacement.functions]. Not sure when the e-polls are getting done.
> But I can write up that additional paper, and maybe you can co-author?

Here's a rough draft of that idea

-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Received on 2023-02-13 05:11:02