This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: HPUX C++ ABI

From: Kumar Gala <kumar dot gala at motorola dot com>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 23:19:41 -0500
Subject: Re: HPUX C++ ABI

But speaking seriously, we Appleites deal with corporate pressure
to support various hacks by maintaining our own version of GCC and
taking on all the costs that go with that, so I'm wondering why it
is that HP can't do the same.  While I personally don't have a problem
doing a little favor for HP, it's going to be really tricky to avoid
charges of favoritism and bias later on if, say, some Apple feature is
shot down.

I have to agree that this is very slippery slope. What stops from extend this to programming models like the AltiVec PIM. Currently GCC supports its own variant of the PIM while all other compilers that implement the specified PIM.

While making GCC support the AltiVec PIM may introduce code into places that are required only to support the PIM, it would be more generally useful to the user base.

Apple obviously ships a modified GCC that supports the spec'd PIM. I would be really nice if users could have code that worked under Linux as well as Mac OS X.

Wear does the line get drawn ?

- kumar

Follow-Ups:
- Re: HPUX C++ ABI
  - From: Matt Austern
- Re: HPUX C++ ABI
  - From: Daniel Berlin

References:
- Re: HPUX C++ ABI
  - From: Stan Shebs

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