[RFC] type safe trees

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

You Wrote Andrew Pinski
>>
>> 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

Therefore, I concluded "No, you (Andrew)" did not know what
I was going to say.  (The "you" in the original message was
"Mark".).

> in the the front-end is good thing which we should be doing which
> does not require the use C++ at all.

If you want to ban "trees", great! Make a proposal which we could
examine then.

>
>
>> > 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.

For the obvious reason that requiring a C++ compiler is one thing,
programming in a subset of the language for which it is very
easy to have a confident bootstrapping process for ia another.

You want to require full C++ for GCC?

> 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.

I'm under the impression that you entirely miss the whole point
of this issue.