From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25126 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 17:25:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25117 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 17:25:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:25:14 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18qGAD-0001wV-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:25:13 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18qG9O-0005jh-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:24:22 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([12.150.115.133]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18qG1N-0002IY-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:16:05 -0500 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24H90b12537 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:09:00 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h24HFwQ29370 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:15:58 -0500 Received: from lincoln.constant.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h24HFv516762 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:15:58 -0800 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:30:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-Id: <20030304111441.0e859c31.bkoz@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > The bottom line was: We should be able to use C++ where appropriate. Too bad "be able" isn't the same as "free" here. Even more to Tom's original point: it's a waste of valuable maintainer time to re-write C++ bits in C. We are all too busy as it is: "C" translation busy work is not helpful. It's not easy to do, some ideas and code organization methods are hard or impossible to express in C, the end result is sometimes a disappointment, and the situation then becomes even more difficult to maintain with two separate versions in two languages. I think Richard Earnshaw has indicated the way forward here. Instead of penalizing every gcc user with a modern compiler (the vast majority), instead make the K&R folk do a pre-bootstrap stage-0 compiler. This seems sane. Next, the C++ front end converted to ISO C. Kaveh, Richard Earnshaw, and Nathan seem to agree that this is possible. Then, everything is cool. -benjamin