This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Converting GCC to compilation with C++
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at acm dot org>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,nathan at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:28:43 -0700
- Subject: Re: Converting GCC to compilation with C++
- References: <40F2C9D5.20703@codesourcery.com> <32805.::ffff:128.194.146.35.1089667109.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:18:29PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Mark Mitchell:
>
> > Nobody seemed to object with making modifications to the source so that
> > it could be compiled
> > with a C++ compiler, which is a first step in any event, so I think
> > people should feel free to proceed with that.
> >
> > For now, it looks like we'll stick with ISO C.
>
> So, in the end, is the idea of making the source code compilable
> by a C++ compiler -- as opposed to using a subset of C++ -- out
> of reach? Sorry for asking, but I can't have a clear idea -- it
> looks like lots of ideas went in. I would welcome a clear
> statement to that effect.
There is no objection to changes that make gcc compilable both by C and
C++ compilers (that is, write in the insersection of C and C++); that
would probably have to be step 1 in any case, even if a transition to
full C++ were desirable. It might even expose some bugs (for example,
using the wrong enum type).
A number of SC members feel that RMS doesn't have veto over purely
technical matters (though the FSF does have veto over legal/"political"
matters), but given that we lack consensus over the merit of a C++ rewrite
or where, exactly, the line should be drawn (full C++? a specified small
subset?), there was no desire to go to war with him over the matter.