This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH INSTALLED]: const typedefs part 19/N
On 8/27/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > That said, I vote for forcing stage1 to be build with a C++ compiler for next
> > stage1.
> > Richard.
>
> Saying "forcing stage1 to be build with a C++ compiler" could be
> interpreted two ways:
>
> It could mean making it *possible* to build with a C++ compiler, i.e. use
> -Wc++-compat for the whole compiler but still allow using plain C to
> bootstrap. (Has anyone tried this recently? Gaby?)
>
> Or using a more radical interpretation, it could mean *only* allow
> building stage1 with C++, i.e. using C++ features in the compiler that
> make it impossible to build stage1 with a plain C compiler.
>
> Which did you vote for?
I did vote for requiring a host C++ compiler and build stage1 with it (that is,
libbackend and the C frontend). stage2/3 would be continued to be built
with a C compiler. The effect would be that libbackend and the C frontend
would be buildable with both C or C++. The benefits are 1) we don't regress
in this ability, 2) it's easy to experiment using some C++ features if you
just disable bootstrap. Especially I would like to have 2) as at the moment
the benefits of using C++ are only theoretical and it is hard to try out some
things as building with C++ breaks all the time.
Richard.