From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8154 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 14:21:14 -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 7858 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:20:55 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id OAA20033; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:20:44 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma019063; Tue, 4 Mar 03 14:19:52 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 OAA28558; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:19:49 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h24EJpT29583; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:19:51 GMT Message-Id: <200303041419.h24EJpT29583@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Olivier Galibert cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , 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 08:49:35 EST." <20030304084935.A26304@kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:33:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:13:39PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > I have no idea of how many GNU extensions there are. Your question is > > probably one of the most important ones to answer. > > Or, the other way around, what about requiring a system C++ compiler > and start using C++[1] in all the front and back ends where useful ? > > OG. > > [1] Maybe not all of C++ immediatly, of course. Fixing the current c++ compiler so that it can be compiled with any ISO C compiler is a completely different level of change from permitting C++ everywhere. Just at this point it isn't reasonable to assume that there are conforming (even sufficiently conforming) C++ compilers widely available on the wide range of hosts that GCC currently supports. Anyway defining a suitable subset of C++ that we could expect is 1) hard -- we don't know enough about all the c++ compilers out there. 2) impossible to enforce rigorously without modifying the compiler to allow us to detect extensions from the subset.