Mistaken change in GCC (fwd)

[James Buchanan]

On 23 Nov 00, at 11:07, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> In article < 10011222207.AA17151@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu > you write:
> >    So it would be OK if we include bloatcpp.c in gcc 3.0 and go to a
> >    more minimal tradcpp implementation in the gcc release after the
> >    next emacs release?
> >
> >I'm can't speak for the emacs folks, but it would certainly address
> >my objection.
> 
> Now, this is probably going to be considered too revolutionary, but
> why not
> 
>  (a) admit that it's GNU emacs that is ugly, and that some of the onus
>      of maintaining that uglyness should fall on GNU emacs instead of
>      the compiler. 
> 
>  (b) face the fact that with an integrated cpp, you might as well drop
>      the notion of an external cpp _entirely_ from the gcc
>      distribution.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> Make a separate package called "cpp", which is utterly, totally, and
> completely independent of the package called "gcc".  The two really do
> not have anything to do with each other any more once gcc uses cpplib.
> And splitting the projects up would be a goodness. 
> 
> Yes, gcc itself will use the external cpp when passed the
> "-traditional" flag.  So what? Gcc already uses external programs like
> the assembler and the linker to do its work for it. cpp isn't anything
> special. It should probably havce been external all the time, in fact.
> 
> AND make that package available to emacs users. If they are upgrading
> their compilers, they might as well just upgrade their cpp packages
> too.
> 
> Is there any reason _not_ to do this? It should solve the problem, AND
> it means that gcc won't have to carry the baggage around.
> 
> Emacs could even include the package in the next release, so that
> people woudln't need to know about the issue.  It's not as if it will
> be noticeable on an emacs scale anyway.  The Emacs philosophy has
> always been to package everything in one place ("it's an editor.  It's
> a newsreader.  It's a LISP environment and a web browser.  And NOW,
> the all-improved Emacs can also do C preprocessing!"), so it should
> make everybody happy.
> 
>    Linus

Maybe the folks who use the emacs operating system would 
appreciate the upgrade to their OS anyway, so I say go ahead and 
do it. 

I'm a bit bamboozled that emacs doesn't do C preprocessing 
already... 

Correct me if I'm an ignorant Aussie twit stuck in a time warp on 
the ass of the earth, but is gcc following the emacs OS tradition of 
stuffing everything into the same program, the program that does 
bloody everything? Ok.... ok.... I don't want to start a flame war... :) 
I'lll shut my mouth now. 

By the way, I was thinking of a new front end to gcc.... Visual 
Basic!!!!! Ha ha ha, just kidding!

--- Aussie Yob