This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++/Obj-C++ PATCH] Fix Objective-C++ breakage
- From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: "Stan Shebs" <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>, "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>, "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:32:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++/Obj-C++ PATCH] Fix Objective-C++ breakage
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I think showing progress on this front would help establish that objc++ is
> actively maintained and strengthen the argument to put it in the default
> bootstrap list. Stan, are you able to contribute on this front?
Is "actively maintained" an argument to enable a language by default?
Ada is actively maintained, and the Ada language probably has far more
users than ObjC++ does. But GNAT is not enabled by default. It is good
that Stan has stood up to maintain it, but the real maintenance hassle
is not on Stan but on everyone who wants to change the C, ObjC, or C++
front ends. If I look at the ObjC++ front end, I see a
dump-and-disappear action by the front end contributors, burdening the
community with the maintenance for it.
So who is going to benefit from enabling ObjC++ by default? Certainly
not any of the groups and individuals who actively contribute to GCC
development. Maybe the odd-one-out Apple user who builds GCC from
source, but that wouldn't justify enabling the front end for everyone
by default, IMHO.
The SC tried to avoid exactly the situation GCC is in now
nobody will be required to test Objective-C++ as part of the check-in
cycle, and people who cause defects in Objective-C++ will not
necessarily be required to fix them, although good manners dictates
that people will help clean up their own mess where practical."