This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Converting to ISO C89
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Date: 05 Apr 2003 20:08:23 -0300
- Subject: Re: Converting to ISO C89
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <200303250642.h2P6gZ4r025932@doubledemon.codesourcery.com><m3llz3btqx.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><1048612019.25895.7.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com><200303251752.MAA08671@caip.rutgers.edu>
On Mar 25, 2003, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu> wrote:
> 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.
> Then java (and all other) frontends can use C++ wherever it makes
> sense.
It's not that simple, unfortunately. Without libstdc++, there's not
much of C++ any language can possibly use.
/me thinks if we're to use C++ in the compiler, it makes more sense to
require a complete, functional C++ compiler upfront, and use it in all
stages.
At least until we've moved the bootstrap process to the top-level, and
arrange for C++ programs created by each stage to be runnable in the
build tree, this is the best way to proceed. Unless we use libtool to
link such executables or set LD_LIBRARY_PATH so that each stage's C++
libraries are found, they won't run. And I realize most people won't
like the notion of bringing libtool into the gcc/ build machinery,
so...
Well, I thought it was worth pointing out, even if a bit late :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva at {redhat dot com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva at {lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer