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]

Re: [cxx-conversion] New Hash Table (issue6244048)

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Michael Matz <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> >> Note also the almost 2 decades of C++ style practice in our libstdc++
>> >> implementation.
>> >
>> > That's one of my fears, namely that those used to the libstdc++ style
>> > impose that on the compiler source base. ?Because IMHO the libstdc++
>> > style isn't very appealing.
>> Neither is the GNU C style, but we use it anyway.
> IMHO it is.
>> IMHO it'd be very strange to use one style in gcc itself, and another in
>> libstdc++.
> We already have a style for GCC, which is different from libstdc++. ?And
> mixing two styles _within_ one project source base (for the moment
> thinking about GCC and libstdc++ as two different projects) would be even
> worse.

The existing style for GCC made sense when gcc was originally designed
with a deliberate flavour of writing Lisp in C.  However, after 25 years, the
codebase has a distinctively different flavour -- one that isn't Lispy anymore.
While adopting a new implementation language, it makes sense to revisit and
revise the style.  It also makse sense to look at existing C++ style within the
GCC project.  That isn't "imposing" by any stretch of imagination or
It would be dismaying if we just kept the old lispy style just because
grand'pa did it that way in C.

-- Gaby

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