From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: egcs@cygnus.com
Cc: yotam_medini@tmai.com, brian_barrick@tmai.com
Subject: Re: egcs & gcc 2.8 ?? 
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <16142.881898135@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199712112351.PAA23325@atrus.synopsys.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00695.html

  In message < 199712112351.PAA23325@atrus.synopsys.com >you write:
  > No, I think it is a safe assumption (that C++ code that compiles with egcs
  > g++ will compile eventually with gcc2) -- the intent is that the C++ front
  > end be installed in both egcs and gcc2, as I understand things.  At any
  > given point in time, egcs may be slightly ahead.  *Warning*: this assumes
  > that you attempt to write standard C++, not just whatever the compiler
  > will accept; in the past, g++ has accepted invalid input due to bugs and
  > folks complain when the next release fixes the bug and rejects the invalid
  > input.
That's actually a more accurate statement than mine.  Thanks Joe.

  > > That depends mostly on the gcc2 folks.  It's mostly out of our hands.
  > 
  > haifa and -frepo, to name two.  Otherwise they aren't going to be all that
  > different, I think.
I think the EH code in egcs is further along, including more accurate flow
graphs, which are pretty important for both code correctness and valid warnings.
We'll have global cse & partial redundancy elimination soon, we've also got
several improvements to the loop optimizer.


  > I suspect that many egcs-generated bug-fixes will appear relatively
  > quickly in the gcc2 *snapshots*.  How long it will take before a release
  > occurs is another matter.
Quite true.

Thanks for helping clarify things Joe.  Sometimes I'm a little too terse.

jeff