This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- To: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>, Ira Ruben <ira at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, compiler_group at group dot apple dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:54:44 -0800
- Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec)
- References: <641D4526-E438-11D5-9EC7-003065C86F94@apple.com>
Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
> > Now I believe that we do have some leeway to update the AltiVec
> > extension syntax, based on what I know of the size of our installed
> > base and how the code is written. If there is a compromise that
> > allows us to have one version of GCC instead of three, and requires
> > only minor edits of source (such as {} instead of () for constants),
> > I think we will be able to get our users to adopt it.
>
> I think the only way our users will adopt a change is if they have no
> choice, and then they will resent it. I haven't asked them, and neither
> has Stan, I don't think, but from what I've seen they are not much
> interested in issues of language theory. They just want their code to
> work, and will regard a necessary change to working code as a big minus
> with no perceptible benefit to them. I even sympathize; they do have
> schedules and limited resources.
In practice, Mac developers will get a nice long transition period.
To use {} vs () as an example, I expect we will support both,
eventually deprecating (). People interested in Linux compatibility
can start using {} right away, those who are more concerned about
Metrowerks compat can stay with ().
Stan