This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at acm dot org>
- To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdr at acm dot org, "Nathan Sidwell" <nathan at codesourcery dot com>,"gcc" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:00:10 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- References: <40D994BE.3080208@codesourcery.com> <37466.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1088004869.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <40D9AE55.3000208@codesourcery.com> <32978.::ffff:128.194.146.36.1088039642.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <40DA4521.8040500@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: gdr at acm dot org
You Wrote
> Seriously, how about we just require that GCC be built with a C++
> compiler that supports whatever features it is that we require? At
Well, you know what I'm going to say :-) :-)
> first, that would be classes, with single inheritance, and no member
> functions. Nothing more -- no templates, no virtual functions, no
> exceptions, etc. That's a subset that even Cfront handled 100%
> correctly, AFAIK. We could add to the subset over time, but the goal
> would be to keep it small enough that we never had any trouble
> bootstrapping.
100% agreed.
-- Gaby