Re: gcc-in-cxx update / multi-targeted gcc

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:21 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> 
> > Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
> > > 
> > > I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
> > > intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including
> > > making sure at an appropriate point that it builds with a non-GCC
> > > compiler, probably an EDG-based one such as the Intel compiler).  Though
> > > bearing in mind that PPL doesn't build with GCC before 4.0, the GCC
> > > version required for building with GCC might increase (though I think
> > > increasing beyond 4.1 would be a bad idea for some time yet).
> > 
> > I think we should distinguish here between the language we want to support
> > for bootstrapping versus the language we want to be use for builds in general
> > to allow convenient type checking, and to support configurations that
> > are not essential for bootstrapping, like ones with multiple target
> > architectures.
> 
> The question is not just one for bootstrapping a native compiler but also 
> one of what compiler can be used to build a cross compiler (such as that 
> with multiple targets), which is not bootstrapped in the usual GCC sense.  
> There we presently document GCC 2.95 or later as required (and again I 
> think requiring a version later than 4.1 would be a bad idea).
> 

GCC (at least, the C port of it) is supposed to be compilable with any
ISO C90 compiler; when did this change?  Or are you saying that if you
are using GCC you need at least 2.95.

R.