This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: gdr at acm dot org
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com (Mark Mitchell), nathan at codesourcery dot com (Nathan Sidwell), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc), zack at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
>
> You Wrote
>
> > Seriously, how about we just require that GCC be built with a C++
> > compiler that supports whatever features it is that we require? At
>
> Well, you know what I'm going to say :-) :-)
Yes we all know about you and C++ but getting away from using TREEs
in the the front-end is good thing which we should be doing which
does not require the use C++ at all.
> > first, that would be classes, with single inheritance, and no member
> > functions. Nothing more -- no templates, no virtual functions, no
> > exceptions, etc. That's a subset that even Cfront handled 100%
> > correctly, AFAIK. We could add to the subset over time, but the goal
> > would be to keep it small enough that we never had any trouble
> > bootstrapping.
>
> 100% agreed.
100% disagree here, if we are going to say we require a C++ compiler
why not go all out why stop at using no templates, exceptions, etc. go
all out and use them all and get worse performance as we have now.
But seriously, we have no need for C++ at this momement in time for GCC,
static only trees are nice but you can still cheat and get around them but
runtime trees you have no way to cheat and get around them. If something
does not exist it turns into an ICE and you will see the problem right away.
Andrew Pinski