From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5505 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2003 10:18:42 -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 5476 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2003 10:18:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2003 10:18:26 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA22877; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:18:25 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma022112; Thu, 6 Mar 03 10:17:36 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 KAA29859; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:34 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h26AHY719681; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:34 GMT Message-Id: <200303061017.h26AHY719681@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Zack Weinberg cc: Benjamin Kosnik , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, austern@apple.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com 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 "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:12:31 PST." <87d6l5ihtc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:08:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 > Everyone in this discussion is talking about *which* C++ features > should be allowed, which is orthogonal to my original concern on this > score. My concern is entirely about *where* C++ can safely be used, > and my opinion at the present time is "only in front ends other than > C/C++/Ada." We can easily arrange to have a fully functional g++ and > libstdc++ available when those front ends are built, starting with > only a C compiler. 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. That's my opinion too. R.