This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:31:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <10903221608.AA05964@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220924q150584b3lfb9da7cf2ecee80c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221635.AA06216@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220939j7e9aa849rae11faed19db3c72@mail.gmail.com> <10903221654.AA06335@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220952o1615ba1cyc7a45f5117b1b633@mail.gmail.com> <10903221703.AA06462@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903221005w2e3b1170p1f626c59b87f8e72@mail.gmail.com> <10903221725.AA06648@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> would you mind elaborating on the philosophical issue here?
>
> Yes, I would mind, because it's not MY issue, but RMS's! ?I don't want
> to speculate why RMS might not want to use C++
That is non argument: RMS has not not contributed any
executable code for GCC, and even less the C++ front-end,
for YEARS now.
>
>> > Similarly, which of two possible algorithms to use *can* be a
>> > *detailed* technical issue, but stops being one if one of those two
>> > choices has a patent issue.
>>
>> By your analogy, which part of C++ do you consider
>> has patent issue compared to Ada?
>
> I don't follow. ?My analogy was just to show two areas where what might be
> considered "technical" decisions might touch on something larger, in one
> case philosophy and in another patents.
>
> If you're asking why RMS didn't object to the Ada front end being written
> in Ada, the answer is that he would have preferred C, but it's always
> acceptable to write all or part of a compiler in its own language. ?E.g.,
and it's acceptable for Ada, but for not for C++.
> COBOL would be an odd choice of a language to write a compiler in, but
> quite reasonable if the language you're compiling is COBOL (and there is
> such). ?Also, there's a difference between starting from scratch with some
> non-C language and converting a C program into one in a different language
> (note RMS's "at least for programs that are presently written in C").
>
>
-- Gaby