From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13152 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2003 07:53:38 -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 13122 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 07:53:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov) (129.6.57.216) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 07:53:37 -0000 Received: (from galibert@localhost) by kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h267rYZ21981; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:53:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:13:00 -0000 From: Olivier Galibert To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Benjamin Kosnik , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, austern@apple.com Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Message-ID: <20030306025334.A21476@kerberos.ncsl.nist.gov> References: <20030305132044.4abee16f.bkoz@redhat.com> <87d6l5ihtc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <87d6l5ihtc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>; from zack@codesourcery.com on Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:12:31PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 02:12:31PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > We can *not* easily ask everyone who currently > builds GCC to install a C++ compiler for bootstrap purposes. I am > personally familiar with an organization that still uses gcc 2.7.2 as > a starting point for GCC builds. That's a bit extreme, but still. They have two easy solutions: - use the 3.x g++ compiler they bootstrapped from their 2.7.2 ages ago - find binaries on the net - pay [insert gcc vendor here, that even includes the fsf iirc] to provide them with binaries Gcc maintainer time is finite, very finite, and if some C++ features helps them doing their jobs (like full-on abstration or exceptions in the verify.cc case), should their time and convenience be second to unnamed organizations? If you ever compared a gtk+ to a Qt equivalent program, you already know how crappy and unmaitainable simulated object in C can be. And, as emacs proves, exceptions through setjmp/longjmp are better left to compilers to generate. Do you want to see that kind of crap appear in gcc, especially in the backend? OG.