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: Great example of why "everything is a tree" sucks

Jeff Law <> writes:

> On 11/13/13 11:30, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Gaius Mulley wrote:
>>> just for completeness this also applies to Modula-2 which uses the
>>> technique of double book keeping.  Not sure if this is totally relevant
>>> but gm2 needs (would like :-) the ability to create a SET_TYPE which
>>> maps onto appropriate debugging type info.
>> Note we removed SET_TYPE in 2004 for lack of in-tree uses (there was a
>> suspicion it might have been for Pascal, but GNU Pascal is now a moribund
>> project (largely I think because of the combination of (a) being closely
>> tied to GCC internals through use of trees as front-end internal
>> representation and (b) not being developed in the GCC repository but
>> externally with attempts to support multiple GCC versions from one GNU
>> Pascal version, meaning lots of effort needed outside the GCC community to
>> update it to new GCC versions - also (c) there's another more actively
>> developed GPL Pascal compiler, Free Pascal, albeit for different versions
>> of the Pascal language).
>> In general, for GCC development to consider requirements of your front end
>> or back end, getting it into the GCC repository and developing it there is
>> strongly recommended.
> Sadly, I tried multiple times in the late 90s to bring the folks going
> GNU Pascal development into the GCC project without any
> success. Eventually I have up.

I'd be delighted to see gm2 in the gcc repository.  The gm2 repository
is currently in git format (changed from cvs 2 weeks ago).  All fsf
copyright assignment forms have been done some years ago.

At present the gm2 master can be grafted onto gcc-4.7.3 with 10 patches
applied.  Under Debian Wheezy x86_64 the regression tests show 332
failures and 8298 passes.

>From reading I wonder whether it would
seem sensible to create two branches one at 4.7.3 and another at branch
at the head (maybe) and mercilessly merge from the head.  Maybe one
of the earlier activities should be to forward port the 10 patches and
post them to the appropriate mailing list?


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