From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1166 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2003 17:37:55 -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 1159 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 17:37:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 17:37:55 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id B13BCF2D9C; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:37:54 -0500 (EST) To: guerby@acm.org, neil@daikokuya.co.uk Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Cc: bosch@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, geoffk@geoffk.org, per@bothner.com, tromey@redhat.com Message-Id: <20030308173754.B13BCF2D9C@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:23:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2 > May be it's because the Ada front-end has been ported to another backend > for JGNAT (Java bytecode backend). This kind of effort forces its share > of middle-end semantics cleanup. (I haven't got the time yet to look > at the CLI/C# one). Reasonable guess, but not at all real history. The JGNAT work involved very few changes to the semantics, and what changes there are are defcinitely not cleanups (well there are a few exceptions, but not many). > IMO Ada has the best and cleanest GCC front end, despite being I think > the biggest. I wonder if the fact that it has its own representation > is just a coincidence. I don't know the other front ends well enough, and I know the GNAT front end far too well, to make any comment on the first sentence, though we do put a huge effort into keeping the code clean. I think the rigorous adherence to the RM terminology and structure is very valuable.