This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ front end
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Cc: Geert Bosch <bosch at gnat dot com>, ben at echotech dot ca, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:29:35 +0100
- Subject: Re: C++ front end
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> > > We would need to go to a four-stage build to support this (or not do a
> > > compare on those front ends that required C++).
> >
> > I don't see that. In stage 2 you build the front end for language X
> > using the stage1 C++ compiler.
>
> There is no stage1 C++ compiler. There only the C compiler is built.
> Remember that the above statement was meant under the condition of not
> requiring a preexisting native compiler for other languages than C.
>
> You could build X in stage2 by the stage2 C++ compiler itself (i.e. first
> make the C++ compiler, then use it to build X), the same for stage3.
> Then, if the stage2 and stage3 C++ compilers are the same, we are in good
> condition. But that has it's difficulties, as the target libs are not
> built until after stage3.
>
Right, but this is just a waste of cpu cycles. If the stage2 and stage3
C++ compilers compare identically, then anything built with them will also
compare identically (since they are, effectively the same compiler).
So we might as well just defer building X to stage3.
R.