Re: set_fatal_function

[Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> writes:
> 
>     Richard> I am working on the technical issues, but there's still a
>     Richard> lot that needs to be done.  Then there's still the
>     Richard> (unresolved as far as I know) issue of whether we want to
>     Richard> add that much code into the repository.
> 
> Right.  My secret fantasy is that rather than centralizing even more
> GCC devleopment we instead concentrate on documenting and stabilizing
> the front-end/back-end interfaces.  We could then distribute
> front-ends independently of back-ends, which would make for more
> frequent releases, since we wouldn't have to wait for everything to
> stabilize at once.  As the number of front-ends grows, the ability to
> stabilize them all simultaneously drops.  Ideally, we'd do this with
> back-ends too.

Hmmm, my reasoning goes just the other way around - after we've got C++
to stabilize, we finally get to issue gcc-3.0.  However, I'd rather like
to have more than one non-C-derivative language frontend (Fortran 77) in
that release (Chill doesn't count, because it doesn't have enough
"customers" - just watch the number of F77 related questions on the gcc
lists vs. the Chill ones).  GNAT would be an excellent choice, given
that it's already mature as a frontend (of course, this assumes seamless
integration into our CVS).

[ Of course, what I really want is COBOL:
	ADD ONE TO C GIVING C PLUS PLUS
  Hi, Tim :-) ]

-- 
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)