RE: Converting GCC to compilation with C++

["Dave Korn" <dk at artimi dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Veksler 
> Sent: 13 July 2004 15:45
> To: Dave Korn
> Cc: gcc; gcc-owner
> Subject: RE: Converting GCC to compilation with C++
> 
> * Dave Korn:
> >   There's one thing even more important than the issue of whether we
> > have to use C or a C++ compilers to build gcc, and that is that it
> > should always be possible to build gcc using the native/proprietary
> > (non-gcc) tools that come with a system, so that you can then
> > replace those tools with gnu tools.
> 
> As an outsider to gcc community, I don't see any unsolvable problems.
> C++ code in gcc does not by itself mean gcc can't bootstrap using
> "native/proprietary (non-gcc) tools". It only means that there should
> be some computer enforced policy in place.

  Absolutely: note that in my original posting, the source of my concerns
was the proposal from R.D. Flowers that we could permit the gcc sources to
use gcc-specific extensions; that indeed would prevent non-gnu tools from
being used to compile gcc of course.

  This particular issue was tangential to the C-vs-C++ debate, which I then
addressed in the second paragraph.  The two issues (gcc source using gcc
extensions => can't compile with non-gnu tools) and (does using C++ make
compiling any harder) were only tangentially related.

>  It only means that there should
> be some computer enforced policy in place.

  There might well be a lot to be said for having auto coding standards
checkers that work like the regression checkers.  A sound - and well
enforced! - policy on the use and limitations of C++ would go a long way to
assuage my reservations.


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....