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)

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: paul at codesourcery dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>,Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:49:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
References: <10406251822.AA12074@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <40DC718F.7080808@codesourcery.com> <45212307-C6D8-11D8-89A4-000A95DA505C@dberlin.org>

k, 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.
n 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

^ it isn't even easy for a normal person with the regular required tools, they have to go out and get a special version of gdb.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
  - From: Geert Bosch

References:
- Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
  - From: Daniel Berlin

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