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: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at acm dot org>
- To: "Robert Dewar" <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: gdr at acm dot org, "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini at gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,"Joe Buck" <joe dot buck at synopsys dot com>,"Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, nathan at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:55:45 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Converting GCC to compilation with C++
- References: <40F2C9D5.20703@codesourcery.com> <32805.::ffff:128.194.146.35.1089667109.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <20040712142843.A7657@synopsys.com> <40F34A8D.2010601@gnat.com> <32794.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1089704266.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <40F3F25F.4070507@gnat.com> <40F3F75A.409@gnu.org> <33027.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1089738114.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <40F45358.5010004@gnat.com>
- Reply-to: gdr at acm dot org
Robert Dewar:
>> I'm amazed at seeing how people prefer brittle hacks to working
>> codes. Virtual functions are guranteed to be set properly,
>> once for while. Currently, we do not have such invariants and
>> we have to do everything hands with more opportunities to make
>> mistakes.
>
> Well it is interesting to note that the use of dynamic dispatching
> in safety-critical programs is extremetly problematic, and it is
> not at all clear that FAA certification could be achieved for
> programs using such techniques. Why? Because MCDC testing is
Thanks for the lecture but I believe you completely forgot
the context of the discussion. If you happen to look at GCC
source code, you would most certainly notice that it uses
what is called "hooks", a mondain pointer to function,
that is set by each front-end and we cross fingers in the hope
that everybody set things right. Is your posting an attempt
to prove that that fiddling with structures and pointer fo functions
a better and safer way of doing things? (Of couse, I'm talking
about GCC source codes).
-- Gaby