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

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot 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 
> manages
> 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 
debugging t

--Dan