Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end

[Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>]

 This reply I don't understand, there is a note on gcc and why it's 
written in C in the docs, also refering to meningless religious debates, 
if we haven't got a reason to have C++ in the fronend why should we ? 
also since it has the potential to be seriously misused and make compile 
times skyrocket. This last statement clearly states misused ! In the 
same manner as the garbage collector has been misused and caused C++ 
compile times to skyrocket, it does in no way imply that C++ is broken 
or anything.

 If I understand the bottom line it is that we 'should' have C++ in the 
frontends ?

 Also in regards to thrust, I do not se how this reflect's on not 
having C++ in the frontends ? I view the issue as having a minimal set 
of prerequitites for the frontend, there is no java, fortran, ada and 
such in the frontend. ( for ada I believe this to be wrong but I am not 
sure ).

 Also I do believe that the C++ libs and java libs are the only libs 
with C++ in them, in strict contrast to all other major languages 
supported by the compiler such as fortran, cobol, ada.

 Is there a rational reason to have a rewrite of gcc instead of a minor 
rewrite of a lib for a target language ?

 Now the above is opinions.

 / Lars Segerlund.

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se> writes:
>
> |   I still think this spels out the solution, rewrite the libgcj
> | checker in C, wrap in C++ use in libgcj, and the c part in the
> | frontend.
>
> We cannot indefinitely refuse to bite the bullet and solve the problem
> for once.
>
> If we cannot trust and use our product, how can we persuade users
> that it worths it? 
>
> -- Gaby