This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end
- From: Olivier Galibert <galibert at pobox dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, austern at apple dot com
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:53:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end
- References: <20030305132044.4abee16f.bkoz@redhat.com> <87d6l5ihtc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:12:31PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> We can *not* easily ask everyone who currently
> builds GCC to install a C++ compiler for bootstrap purposes. I am
> personally familiar with an organization that still uses gcc 2.7.2 as
> a starting point for GCC builds. That's a bit extreme, but still.
They have two easy solutions:
- use the 3.x g++ compiler they bootstrapped from their 2.7.2 ages ago
- find binaries on the net
- pay [insert gcc vendor here, that even includes the fsf iirc] to
provide them with binaries
Gcc maintainer time is finite, very finite, and if some C++ features
helps them doing their jobs (like full-on abstration or exceptions in
the verify.cc case), should their time and convenience be second to
unnamed organizations?
If you ever compared a gtk+ to a Qt equivalent program, you already
know how crappy and unmaitainable simulated object in C can be. And,
as emacs proves, exceptions through setjmp/longjmp are better left to
compilers to generate. Do you want to see that kind of crap appear in
gcc, especially in the backend?
OG.