This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap issues with C++


On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>>> Well, sure, but the patch didn't seem to be removing any use of
>>> designated initializers.
>
>> In the case of designated initializers, it would also be helpful for
>> someone to indicate the performance cost of not using them when GCC is
>> built with a C++ compiler. ?How much startup time is spent on
>> initialization that would be done with designated initializers when built
>> as C?
>
> I'm all for good science, but it seems highly unlikely to me that you'd
> be able to measure this difference, even when compiling the empty file.
> ?That said, designated initializers are clearly a useful feature, and
> I'm all for adding them to the GNU dialect of C++, especially in the
> case of PODs. ?Maintaining the "C++ is a supserset of C" principle -- to
> the extent possible -- is clearly desirable.

Isn't it the case that designated initializers aren't part of ISO C90, which
is what we currently require as a bootstrapping compiler?

-- Gaby


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