This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ front end
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Geert Bosch <bosch at gnat dot com>, ben at echotech dot ca, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:11:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: C++ front end
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > Right, but this is just a waste of cpu cycles. If the stage2 and stage3
> > C++ compilers compare identically, then anything built with them will also
> > compare identically (since they are, effectively the same compiler).
> >
> > So we might as well just defer building X to stage3.
>
> Yep. Although I think we currently do the same. With this reasoning we
> also wouldn't need to build the fortran, C++, ObjC and java compilers in
> each stage (or generally all frontends written in C), as it's only the C
> compiler which is anyway excercised here. AFAIK we don't do anything with
> those compilers in stage2, so we could defer also those to stage3. Would
> throttle back bootstrap times a little.
No, the other C-coded front ends are built with different compilers (the
object files in stage1 and stage2 do NOT compare equally). So it *IS*
useful to compare the results of those front ends for equivalence.
If the stage1 and stage2 compilers compared identically, then building
stage3 would be pointless.
R.