Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8

[Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>
>>> I admit that I'm partly fishing here, but my proposal is based on the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> * The implementation of PCH in GCC is atrocious and hard to maintain.
>>> * The next C++ standard is likely to define modules
>>> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf)
>>> * The user-base for PCH is negligibly small (here's where I'm mostly
>>> guessing). * PCH is absolutely useless for C.
>>>
>>> Removing PCH will give us more implementation freedom for the memory
>>> management project
>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gc-alternatives).
>>
>> One of the arguments put forward to advocate the transition to C++ was the
>> competition.  Where do the other compilers stand when it comes to PCHs?
>

> Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules.

Are they sharing some implementations?

David

>We don't plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
>
> -Chris