This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Implementing Universal Character Names in identifiers
- From: loewis at informatik dot hu-berlin dot de (Martin v. Löwis)
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 20:57:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: Implementing Universal Character Names in identifiers
- References: <200210280715.g9S7FdI2003815@paros.informatik.hu-berlin.de><20021028075111.GB1273@codesourcery.com><j4wuo39c6o.fsf@informatik.hu-berlin.de><20021028183910.GC24090@codesourcery.com><8765vi1inl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com><j4d6ppmxug.fsf@informatik.hu-berlin.de><87bs59vyn5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
> However, the ability to use these is part of the Java language
> specification. So we have a strong preference for supporting them on
> all platforms. We already do that by mangling the identifiers when we
> see a non-ascii character.
There are many things in the Java language specification that gcj does
not do, or does not do equally well on all systems. Since you can get
GNU binutils for all systems, you can fulfill this specific
requirement everywhere if needed.
> We're only concerned with compatibility with g++ here. It doesn't
> matter to us whether C does or does not mangle symbols on a given
> platform.
OTOH, I would not like to see two different approaches for g++
depending on the platform, and compatibility with C *is* important for
g++ - so I'd let g++ be guided rather by the C requirements than by
the Java requirements.
Actually, the requirement is the same for C, C++ and Java: UCNs are
part of the language specification. I can't derive a preference to
have that somehow work on all systems - if you must simultaneously
impose additional restrictions (such as reserving more identifiers),
or risk forward compatibility (if the system vendor decides to solve
this issue differently).
Regards,
Martin