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: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, 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
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:22:40 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <206fcf960903220823s6fe866fdja8c96e60bb3c432c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220850w3c8c01f9o7efe6833af8d770e@mail.gmail.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> <571f6b510903221408o4825916cxa90348f74f9fd41b@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Richard Kenner
> > <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >>> Yes, surely you have heard of stonewalling use of C++ to directly
> >>> express some of the abstractions we use in the compiler.
> >>
> >> Those are hardly detailed technical issues,
> >
> > So, from your perspective, a request
> >
> > ? ?to use (a subset of) C++ for compiling GCC
> >
> > is hardly detailed technical issue.
>
> Well... The language to write your software in is not really a detail,
> but it's certainly a technical issue.
>
> But anyway, is the official position of the FSF still "thou shall use
> not C++"? That would mean GNU binutils is in violation with gold, no?
Probably people were clever enough not to ask the FSF about this ;)
Richard.