From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17792 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2012 17:37:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 17643 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2012 17:37:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:36:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3AHasqm011939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:36:54 -0400 Received: from [10.36.5.101] (vpn1-5-101.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.5.101]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3AHapsl009745; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:36:52 -0400 Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 From: Torvald Riegel To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Xinliang David Li , Richard Guenther , Bernd Schmidt , Gabriel Dos Reis , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo , gcc In-Reply-To: <20120410163905.GK6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <4F7C35A3.3080207@codesourcery.com> <20120410084614.GJ6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20120410163905.GK6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1334079411.11195.69.camel@triegel.csb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:39 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote: > > > Not to mention it is very questionable if the above stuff is more readable > > > than what we currently have. > > > > The above is just quickly cooked up examples. A carefully designed C++ > > based API can be self documenting and make the client code very > > readable. It is hard to believe that there is no room for improvement > > in GCC. > > Do you have examples? I hate to bring this up, but in my personal experience, getting started with LLVM was _much_ easier than with GCC. LLVM is a much newer codebase, so that's an advantage unrelated to the language. Nonetheless, the grouping/context/ease-of-navigation provided by namespaces, objects, etc. is indeed valuable in my opinion. Torvald