From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25172 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 14:46:22 -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 24883 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 14:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 14:46:06 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id OAA16231; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:46:00 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma016066; Tue, 4 Mar 03 14:45:44 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 OAA29773; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:45:41 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h24Ejhb15458; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:45:43 GMT Message-Id: <200303041445.h24Ejhb15458@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Olivier Galibert cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Gabriel Dos Reis , 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 09:35:05 EST." <20030304093505.A26670@kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:53:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 > > 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. > > There is gcc 3.2.2. But that doesn't support hosts that might come along in the future (or are you proposing to maintain it in perpetuity?) > > > 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. > > Maybe. Maybe you only really need to care about being able to compile > with gcc from 2 or 3 major versions past, as gnat seems to do. > > Is it reasonable in 2003 to have a quite complex compiler written in > K&R C? Not even ISO C? The last time this came up (probably less than 6 months ago), the answer was "yes". We've been round this discussion before. Let's not rehash all the same old arguments again. personally, I'd be happy to see people using K+R only compilers to start the bootstrap having to do a 4th stage (so that only the C compiler has to be K+R). It might even mean that the stage0 compiler only contains enough code to do non-optimizing compilations. But that's my opinion and it may well not be shared by other maintainers. R.