RE: [PATCH INSTALLED]: const typedefs part 19/N

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 28 August 2007 15:16, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On 8/28/07, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>> That said, I vote for forcing stage1 to be build with a C++ compiler for
>>> next stage1.
>> 
>> I don't think it's reasonable to require a C++ compiler to build the GNU C
>> compiler, especially on non-GNU platforms.  You may only have a C compiler
>> in the default installation and it should be sufficient to bootstrap GCC.
>> 
> We already require an ISO C compiler which some platforms do not
> provide.  We already have a list of requirements necessary to do
> development of our compiler that include a bunch of other packages.
> Why is "Any version of G++ > 3.0" somehow different?

  Because it completely excludes *all* native compilers?  Because it's a radical
about-turn and 180 degree shift in long-standing policy?

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....