This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> > On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > > So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). ?1) and 2)
>> > > can be combined by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class,
>> > > with proper GC support. ?(not sure that I can veto anything
>> > > - heh)
>> >
>> > I don't think I can veto anything, but I'll go on the record
>> > again saying that I don't think this entire plan is a good
>> > idea. Write a new project in C++? Absolutely. Convert a large
>> > existing one to a different language? A huge waste of time that
>> > will distract us for years from actual user-visible changes.
>>
>> I agree for the idea of converting all of GCC to C++ (whatever
>> that means). ?I disagree for the part making the internal
>> infrastructure easier to use, understand and maintain. ?Which
>> means targeting mostly isolated sub-systems, like vec.h (and
>> other various containers), double-int.[ch] (and other various
>> way of representing and working with constants). ?Making tree
>> or gimple a C++ class with inheritance and whatever is indeed
>> a huge waste of time and existing developer ressources (that,
>> if only because they have to adapt and maintain two completely
>> different code-bases over some time).
>
> Trees are presently a significant problem in that many static errors
> become dynamic errors, which entails more debugging.
How do you expect tree errors to become static? By using derived
types everywhere? Note that this would only be possible in a _very_
limited sub-set of places.
>> I expect the GCC core to maintain written in C, compiled by C++.
>
> Converting VECs to C++ vectors vector would provide significant code
> clarity benefits. ?The files in which that is done would necessarily
> be C++ only.
I already had VECs as the very first and best example why C++ might
be good.
>> > I also find debugging C++ in gdb somewhat more annoying than
>> > debugging plain C, and at the moment I always go back to a
>> > stage1 compiler.
>>
>> Indeed - I'd be worried if my debugging efficiency decreases by
>> more than 5%.
>
> If the number of debugging sessions was reduced by the same amount,
> the result would be a net wash.
I have no expectation that the number of debug sessions will be reduced.
Richard.
> --
> Lawrence Crowl