This is the mail archive of the 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)

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


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