This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: AspectG++ ?

From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: David Lanzendörfer <david dot lanzendoerfer at o2s dot ch>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:09:02 -0600
Subject: Re: AspectG++ ?
References: <201102181056.51325.david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch> <20110218175803.GE16848@synopsys.com> <201102182127.02561.david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch> <AANLkTimyO4QwzRaTS25C2FkkE=zMs-hHZ7OYdgLZ5Bnu@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/18/2011 02:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

On 18 February 2011 20:26, David Lanzendörfer wrote:

I'm NO compiler architect, but from my point of perspective - please correct
me if I'm wrong - for adding support for AOP into C/C++ part of gcc, only minor
changes would be needed.

Even if that's true (I don't know, but adding almost anything to g++
is difficult) the point is not "can it be done" but whether someone
would be willing to maintain and support the changes.  If not, the
code will rot and stop working and eventually have to be removed.

And non-standard extensions are generally
not acceptable.

--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&  Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985

Follow-Ups:
- Re: AspectG++ ?
  - From: David Lanzendörfer

References:
- AspectG++ ?
  - From: David Lanzendörfer
- Re: AspectG++ ?
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: AspectG++ ?
  - From: David Lanzendörfer
- Re: AspectG++ ?
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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