This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

cxx-conversion a good idea?


The cxx-conversion idea does not come without its
cons. The most important for us is that there will
not be a plain gcc-core package that is smaller,
builds faster a plain C compiler with a smaller
binary and is able to bootstrap future versions
of a plain C compiler made of the latest vesion
of gcc. The con is recursive.

The pros are two as far as i can see:

1) The C++ frontend will be put to the test in
the bootstrap proccess. This one indeed has some

2) The gcc codebase can become cleaner and/or
faster. This one is arguable and it would take
some real numbers to prove the extra bootstrap
time is worth it.

Please note that i'm speaking as someone who
is developing software that is strictly C (and
many projects are like that, including python,
perl, ffmpeg, linux-kernel, etc, etc) and i'm
interested to get the latest gcc-core snapshot
occassionaly to test both gcc and my software.
And the explosion of the tarball size and
bootstrap time lately is very discouraging.

Given the fact that especially in the embedded
world it's possible to have a perfectly working
system based exclusively on C and a dynamic
language, i think there should be a choice to
be able to avoid the dependency of the C++
component in the compiler for those who want
that. The ability to have this choice is a
feature of gcc...



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]