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: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)


    what would be the point of requiring a C++ compiler if we were not
    then going to start using the language?  

None.

    I fail to see how anyone can interpret Paul's understanding of the
    proposal as 'inventing a language and converting it to C', which is
    what you seem to think he's saying, given that you've refuted his
    comment as '... not inventing a language ...'.

I didn't think he was talking about that proposal.

I thought he was addressing the proposal to use a more complex version of the
GTY annotations to create C++-like model within GCC and convert it to C.  I
interpreted "that languages" to mean the GTY annotations.

I thought his point was that it was better to use C++ than some invented
languages.  I was agreeing with that, but pointing out that it was an "apples
to oranges" comparison because the invented languages would only be used in a
small isolated place while C++ would be used everywhere.

    So far your only point has been that bootstrapping to a virgin system
    would be harder. (a) it's hard full stop (b) the ada compiler is in
    ada which appears to be a more complicated language than C++, and it
    manages to do such bootstraps.

No, not at all!  I would *never* consider doing the first bootstrap to a
virgin system to be for Ada.  In my experience, even once the C bootstrap is
working solidly, it takes a considerable amount of time to get Ada
bootstrapped.  But Ada and C++ are languages of roughly equivalent complexity
and so I wouldn't want to start with it either.


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