From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3133 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 14:01:47 -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 3110 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:01:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:01:31 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id OAA27768; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:25 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma027456; Tue, 4 Mar 03 14:01:00 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27817; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:00:57 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h24E10t29459; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:01:00 GMT Message-Id: <200303041401.h24E10t29459@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Nathan Sidwell cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Rupert Wood , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:45:44 GMT." <3E649FF8.9000105@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:22:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 > Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > Could the C++ front end be modified to make it compilable with any C > > compiler (ignoring for the moment that parts of the C++ front end are now > > written in ISO c90). That is, how many gnu extensions are used, and can > > they be easily removed? > a quick compile with -pedantic shows, > char bitfields such as > 1 cp-tree.h: unsigned char is_lang_type_class : 1;. Making this an int would > enlarge that structure. The comment preceding lang_type_header already indicates that some of the bits there logically belong in lang_type_class. And a quick look through the header suggests that only one use really relies on this being an eight-bit field and that is lang_type_class: the other two uses are 1) a Union 2) lang_type_ptrmem (where it is already followed by a 32-bit aligned object. So if we made this a bitfield of an int, we could push up to 32-bits worth of things into lang_type_header and the cost would be zero. R.