This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:07:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- References: <10406251504.AA10288@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:04:16AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> But the support for cross compiling doesn't help your argument at all;
> I don't understand what your point is here.
> I don't see the cross-compiling issue as relevant. *At some point*, if
> you are building a system meant for development, you have to take the
> bootstrap step and when you do, any complexity will make things more
But this lets you schedule native bootstrapping further down the chain,
at which point you need to have all languages working _anyway_! Unless
"for development" you mean "just C".
> I cross-compile to self-hosted systems all the time already. So do
> lots of other people on this list. It's actually exceedingly
> Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It depends, among other things,
> on how much homogeneity there is between the host and target. There's
> a port to IA64/VMS going on now that's being done in a cross-environment
> and it's a *major pain*.
I can certainly see VMS being a pain in this regard, that's true.
However, I've found that figuring out solutions for this sort of
homogeneity problem is well worthwhile in the long run.