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: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: 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, rguenther at suse dot de
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:31:08 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.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, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> 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.
yes, I do think the choice of language is NOT a detail -- and I
do not understand that "detailed" means "just a detail".
>
> 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?
Well, I hope someone would come and explain why an efficiency
factor of more than "5" is something that should be dismissed
because the software was originally written in C, but has now
been written in C++.
-- Gaby