From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23769 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 16:40:46 -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 23762 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 16:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.148) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 16:40:44 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-17-145.twcny.rr.com [24.24.17.145]) by ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h24Gegb1000380 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:40:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from neroden by doctormoo with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18qFSz-00005b-00 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:40:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:56:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-ID: <20030304164033.GA338@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Nathanael Nerode X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 Richard Earnshaw said: >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. I think that sounds fine too. If we accepted that, *and* we made the C++ front end C89 compliant, then we could put C++ code into the Java front end without having to add a 4th stage to bootstrap (for people with an ISO system compiler). The fact that the C++ front end uses GNU extensions currently is the only reason I disapprove of putting C++ into the Java front end. With the GNU extensions, it means a 3-stage bootstrap would be impossible with a non-GCC system compiler. (People with only K&R system compilers... well, I don't care that much.) --Nathanael