This is the mail archive of the 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 is OK

On 06/03/2010 12:09 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Robert Dewar <> wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>> Indeed. It is, well, perhaps not surprising, but quite annoying (to me
>>> at least) that a possible move to C++ as implementation language of
>>> GCC is so much bigger news than all the amazing amounts of work done
>>> in the last few years on things like LTO, the vectorizer, IRA, etc...
>> And indeed you have to worry a bit that productive work on critical
>> areas like this may be siphoned off developing, reviewing and testing
>> changes from C to C++ whose benefit may often be much less than the
>> work involved in doing them.
>> Redoing working code in language A into language B is always a bit
>> dubious. I would be very cautious and judicious in allowing changes
>> to existing working code. New stuff is a different matter, and where
>> there is an argument in any case for reengineering it may make sense.
> Indeed ;)  I'd like us to switch to the C / C++ common soon (thus,
> use C for stage1 and C++ for stage2 and stage3).  That will help
> us sort out problems on the various host/target combinations that
> will surely exist.
> Then wait for this special very-nice-and-we-definitely-want-to-have-it
> patch that requires C++.  And only then switch to C++.
> (you could argue that we can as well use C++ for stage1 and C for
> stage2 and stage3, that would work for me as well but would
> for example not allow starting to use C++ in the Java frontend only).
> With all this discussion I am more and more back-pedaling on
> the conversion to C++ - there is
> very much cleanup work to do inside GCC that does not require
> or benefit from C++.  I'd not like to see people jumping on the
> let's convert GCC to C++ wagon leaving all the obvious existing
> problems unaddressed.  We do not have an implementation language
> problem - we do have many others.

Right, but I didn't think there was any plan to convert en masse to
C++ -- just to allow people to use it where appropriate.  Apart from
anything else, there's always a nonzero probablility of breaking

I'll turn that into a question: does any GCC maintainer intend to convert
working code into C++, with no substantive changes?


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