This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Converting to ISO C89


Hi,

"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu> writes:

>  > > Great! 
>  > > 
>  > > Is the topic on using C++ in the Java front-end handled by the SC?
>  > 
>  > If necessary, the SC could deal with this.  
>  > 
>  > But it would be much better if there were consensus here first.
>  > 
>  > I think the topic of using C++ in gcj is different: it doesn't affect
>  > the end-user.  Using C89 in GCC means that the user must start with a
>  > C89 compiler; using C++ in gcj doesn't affect the set of tools the
>  > user must have at all.  So, I think it's more a technical decision
>  > than an SC decison.
>
> Agreed.
>
> IMHO once we've decided to require ISO C89 to bootstrap, we should
> remove gcc-isms from the cp/ dir and compile cc1plus during stage1.
> We can perhaps condition cc1plus during stage1 iff java is enabled.

Hopefully the ISO C89 changes also make the source C++-safe.  In which
case, eventually there should be some way of running a stage2
bootstrap with that 'cc1plus' in addition to 'cc1'.  Running that
occasionally and comparing it with 'cc1' would ensure more uniformity.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath at cs dot umn dot edu


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]