From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8774 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 17:41:51 -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 8762 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 17:41:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:41:51 -0000 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 h24HYqb14753 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:34:52 -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 h24HfoQ31370 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:41:50 -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 h24Hfn518461 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:41:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:55:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-Id: <20030304114033.180e04b6.bkoz@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 > The last time this came up, I recall the conclusion being 'not for 3.3 > but let's revisit this in the 3.4 cycle' which is now. Personally I'd > be happy to see ISO C required for the entire compiler collection at > this point. Seconded. Thirded. I'm running out of hands here.... > what if we only built the C front end, optimizers, and back end during > all three stages of a bootstrap? And then came back to build the other > front ends when we were done? I think this sounds like a really good idea. -benjamin