Re: Converting GCC to compilation with C++

[Ranjit Mathew <rmathew at gmail dot com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
>>    How would it be different from the current situation
>>    for the Ada front end?
>>
>>The Ada front end is written in itself, while this is written in a "third"
>>language (not itself and not in C).  One of the arguments in favor of
>>writing a front end in itself is that bootstrapping then becomes a good
>>compiler test.

Fully agreed.


> I agree with Richard here, it would really be more attractive to write
> gcj in Java rather than C++, and since Java is reasonably portable, this
> should not compromise the build process too much. Oh well this is
> undoubtedly only an academic comment.

Yes, Tom would have preferred it too:

  http://www.peakpeak.com/~tromey/blog/2004/07/14/#gcjx6

However, most freely available compilers for Java target JVM
bytecodes only and GCJ itself is the only decent one I know
of that generates native code.

Unfortunately, GCJ is not yet as mature and robust as
(say) the C or the C++ compilers in GCC, so it might
not be that great an idea. (Disclaimer: Purely personal
opinion, in no way representative of the entire set
of GCJ hackers.)

Another point I missed in my messages on the
bootstrapping process (and which Tom notes in his blog)
is the fact that for a front-end not written in C,
building the runtime libraries (libstdc++ or libgcj)
also has to be factored in.

Ranjit.

-- 
Ranjit Mathew          Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.      Web: http://ranjitmathew.tripod.com/