This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: paul at codesourcery dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:48:38 -0400
- Subject: Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
- References: <10406251822.AA12074@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <40DC718F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Jun 25, 2004, at 2:40 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Richard Kenner wrote:
4) Incremental conversion to C++ idioms, where those are prudent.
That sounds like rewriting a significant chunk of code in C++ to
me. No, this a proposal to *require a C++ compiler*, not to invent a
language and convert it to C.
what would be the point of requiring a C++ compiler if we were not
then going to start using the language? 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 ...'.
Heck, i'm a lawyer, and even i wouldn't lawyer someone to the degree
that seems to be going on here.
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
to do such bootstraps.
And I might add, GDB doesn't even support Ada in the main tree right
now, last i looked (5.x through 6.x), while it does support C++, so