From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23763 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 22:23:32 -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 23749 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 22:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (204.176.21.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 22:23:29 -0000 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2PMMNP07804; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:22:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:26:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: tm_gccmail@mail.kloo.net Cc: Raja R Harinath , Zack Weinberg , "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , mark@codesourcery.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net Subject: Re: Converting to ISO C89 Message-ID: <20030325142223.A7739@synopsys.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from tm_gccmail@mail.kloo.net on Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:03:39PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01582.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 03:03:39PM -0800, tm_gccmail@mail.kloo.net wrote: > > I was thinking more about optimization: ensure that there's no > > abstraction penalty for using a C++ compiler on C code, and that both > > the C and C++ compilers exploit the same optimization opportunities. > > > > - Hari > > IIRC, C code compiled as C++ needs to carry around stack unwinding > information whereas C code compiled as C does not. With GCC, this is an option: we can enable the stack unwinding information for C, or disable it for C++.