This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [using gcc book] ch1 objective-c blurb
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Colin Douglas Howell <chowell2@pacbell.net> writes:
| Chris Devers wrote:
| > After splitting the text of _Using and Porting GCC_ into the _Using..._
| > and _Porting..._ books, the material remaining in _Using..._ is primarily
| > about C, C++, and Objective-C support. Chapter one, which is only a page
| > long, includes paragraphs about the first two language, but doesn't really
| > discuss the Objective-C aspect.
| > Based roughly on what is said about C++/G++, I've taken a stab at a
| > writeup of the ObjC side, but I'd like to be sure that what I'm saying
| > isn't wildly inaccurate.
| > For comparison, here's the existing G++ writeup:
| > G++ is a compiler, not merely a preprocessor. G++ builds
| > object code directly from your C++ program source. There
| > is no intermediate C version of the program. (By contrast,
| > for example, some other implementations use a program that
| > generates a C program from your C++ source.) Avoiding an
| > intermediate C representation of the program means that you
| > get better object code, and better debugging information. The
| > GNU debugger, GDB, works with this information in the object
| > code to give you comprehensive C++ source-level editing
| > capabilities (see section .C and C++. in Debugging with GDB).
| > Here's my ObjC paragraph:
| > Compilation of Objective-C programs is done with GCC itself,
| > rather than a front end like G++ or GNAT. As with G++
| > programs, the lack of a preprocessor and the direct build
| > of object code from your Objective-C program source provides
| > better object code and better debugging capabilities.
| > Does this accurately reflect things? Is there anything else that
| > should be
| > mentioned?
|
| My first thought about this is that while some discussion of Objective C
| may be called for, the paragraph you propose above is completely unnecessary.
I disagree. Especially given what you say below. My comments do not
concern Objective-C, since I know next to nothing about it.
[I've snipped Gabriel's very interesting comments, which throw in doubt the GCC
manual's comparison between G++ and other C++ compilers which generate
intermediate C source.]
It seems to me that, given your comments, there is even less reason for Chris's
original proposed paragraph above, since you point out that the generation of a
C-based intermediate form does not imply inferior code quality. So why did you
say, "I disagree"?
Colin