From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2621 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2004 01:11:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2612 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2004 01:11:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.knology.net) (24.214.63.101) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2004 01:11:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 27957 invoked by uid 0); 26 Oct 2004 01:11:45 -0000 Received: from user-24-96-113-172.knology.net (HELO ?192.168.0.8?) (24.96.113.172) by smtp5.knology.net with SMTP; 26 Oct 2004 01:11:45 -0000 Message-ID: <417DA449.4000404@coyotegulch.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:26:00 -0000 From: Scott Robert Ladd User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040919) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Austern CC: Ziemowit Laski , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: Unified front end for C and C++ (was Re: New C parser [patch]) References: <42A6DEB0-26D4-11D9-9558-000D9330C50E@apple.com> <8354E669-26DE-11D9-B761-000D9330C50E@apple.com> <417D8F67.5070105@coyotegulch.com> <2A6B2DDE-26E1-11D9-A96B-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <2A6B2DDE-26E1-11D9-A96B-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg02145.txt.bz2 Matt Austern wrote: > On the one hand, that sounds plausible. On the other hand: gcc is the > only compiler I know of that has separate source bases for the C and C++ > front ends. Certainly EDG, MetroWerks, and Microsoft use the same > source base for both, and at least one of those three uses not only the > same source base but the same executable. None of those companies, so far as I know, implement C++, nor do they try to. I believe one of the goals of GCC is full C99 support, which is difficult to reconcile with C++. > It may very well be true that getting from where we are to a common > front end for C and C++ would be so hard that it's not worth doing. But > we do have an existence proof that such a compiler is possible and that > it's can be maintainable and fast. And it may not be desirable if the two languages continue to diverge, which is likely. -- Scott Robert Ladd site: http://www.coyotegulch.com blog: http://chaoticcoyote.blogspot.com