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: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Bernd Schmidt <> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> However, the concern you raised is only one part of the problem. ?The
>> other is that, put in a simplified way, GCC is competing with LLVM about
>> new and/or non-fulltime-compiler developers. ?For me, it looks like LLVM
>> is more appealing to them, and I believe part of the reason for that is
>> the codebase.
> There seem to be other opinions as well, some voiced in this thread,
> which just supports my argument that you can't do it right for everyone.
> Part of the reason LLVM is appealing may just be advertising, which we
> don't do at all, perhaps due to the deep-seated inferiority complex we
> have about gcc.

yes -- GCC is not considered old and not 'cool' -- so it is hard to
advertise. One criteria to see GCC's future popularity is how widely
it is adopted by academia ..

>> Now, how many release cycles do we have until LLVM is basically good
>> enough to be used as a distro compiler (e.g., until code quality and
>> confidence in bug freedom is sufficiently similar)? ?If we haven't
>> ensured that GCC is appealing by this time, why should new programmers
>> then start considering GCC and not just go by default to LLVM?
> Maybe we should concentrate on our own strengths. Improve the
> optimizers, support more targets well, fully implement language
> standards, etc. ?Spending developer time on something fruitless like a
> language switch has an opportunity cost, it just gives competing
> projects more time to catch up in areas that matter for users.

but LLVM is not standing still either ..

> Bernd

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