From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>
To: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>,
Ziemowit Laski <zlaski@apple.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Unified C and C++ front end (was Re: New C parser [patch])
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410261028220.17158@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ED5C8380-2701-11D9-9268-000393B2ABA2@apple.com>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Matt Austern wrote:
> Another useful summary, "written in support of the view that
> C/C++incompatibilities can and should be eliminated," is the following series
> of articles:
> http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8011/cuj0207stroustr/
> http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8010/cuj0208stroustr/
> http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8009/cuj0209stroustr/
This looks rather like a follow-on to Stroustrup's previous attempts on
the c++std-compat list in June 2001. The general reception from the C
side was rather unfavorable. People don't think that incompatibilities
are good in themselves (though maybe some people do) but that doesn't mean
the subset language route is *now* (rather than 25 years ago) a good route
to go for either language. (And one view expressed was that there are too
many kludges for the sake of compatibility in both languages and it would
be better to let the languages go their own separate ways without needing
such kludges.)
I do think there is a use for a common core machine model covering such
things as sequence point rules and exactly what type and size of object is
relevant for each memory access and when such an access is valid - hard
questions which need addressing for both languages and where the existing
definitions are sufficiently unclear that it cannot be said there is a
clear incompatibility which existing code may rely on. And some existing
incompatibilities are probably susceptible to being fixed in future
standards without too much incompatibility with real code - but we do have
to live with the fact that for existing standard versions e.g. the rules
for lexing UCNs differ.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-26 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-23 1:25 New C parser [patch] Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-23 2:39 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-10-23 4:15 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-23 5:44 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-10-24 22:49 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 0:32 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-26 1:03 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-10-26 1:03 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-26 1:11 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 8:23 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-26 1:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-10-26 1:06 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 2:47 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 3:48 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-10-26 12:21 ` Kyuupi
2004-10-26 12:32 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 11:42 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-27 19:04 ` Richard Henderson
2004-10-27 19:11 ` Richard Guenther
2004-10-27 19:41 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-27 19:31 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-10-27 21:31 ` Richard Henderson
2004-10-28 7:38 ` Alan Modra
2004-10-27 20:25 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-25 22:33 ` Ziemowit Laski
2004-10-25 22:51 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-25 23:45 ` Ziemowit Laski
2004-10-25 23:53 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-10-26 0:03 ` Unified front end for C and C++ (was Re: New C parser [patch]) Matt Austern
2004-10-26 1:26 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-10-26 1:43 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-10-26 2:01 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-10-26 15:38 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-10-26 0:28 ` New C parser [patch] Ziemowit Laski
2004-10-26 1:20 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2004-10-26 6:08 ` Unified C and C++ front end (was Re: New C parser [patch]) Matt Austern
2004-10-26 11:14 ` Joseph S. Myers [this message]
2004-10-26 16:04 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-10-26 16:51 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 0:37 ` New C parser [patch] Joseph S. Myers
2004-10-26 0:03 ` Stan Shebs
2004-10-26 1:46 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0410261028220.17158@digraph.polyomino.org.uk \
--to=jsm@polyomino.org.uk \
--cc=austern@apple.com \
--cc=coyote@coyotegulch.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=zlaski@apple.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).