Compiling GCC with g++: a report

[Mark Mitchell]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>The cast you're talking about is buried deep in XNEWVEC, XRESIZEVEC
>>and such.  It is not anything you'll find in the code directly.  So,
>>in fact we do not lose readability as you claim.
> 
> 
> To be honest, I think XNEW* are less readable than bare xmalloc, and I
> regret that I ever invented them.

Too late. :-)

We have adopted them, and people have started using them.  Unlike you, I 
still think they're a good thing.  More importantly, I think it would be 
a mistake to reopen this issue; I don't think the difference is terribly 
important, but not having the debate seems like a win. :-)

> Things I consider correct coding, but outside the intersection of C90
> and C++, include: not casting the return value of allocator functions;

See above.

> not casting to void* when passing an arbitrary pointer to a function
> that takes a void* parameter

That's not necessary in C++ either; the C++ difference is that you must 
cast "void *" to "int *" to call a function accepting an "int *"; not 
the opposite.  Maybe that's what you meant?

> unrestricted use of C++ keywords;
 >
> declaring structure fields with the same name as a structure tag in
> scope.

I don't think we should be reverting patches that fall afoul of these 
last two, even if they break Gaby's build-with-a-C++-compiler builds. 
But, I would tend to accept patches from Gaby to fix such problems.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304