From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20846 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 13:29:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 20833 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 13:29:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:28:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3BDSHjX005695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:28:17 -0400 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [10.16.42.4]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3BDSGJ9022569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:28:17 -0400 Received: from tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com [127.0.0.1]) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3BDSFlP006377; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:28:15 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q3BDSD39006375; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:28:13 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:29:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Bernd Schmidt , Eric Botcazou , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Miles Bader , Torvald Riegel , Xinliang David Li , Richard Guenther , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 Message-ID: <20120411132813.GC16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <87lim3p8pv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4F84B448.4090208@codesourcery.com> <201204110127.30744.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20120411070150.GM6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <4F857A44.4030202@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue > that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem > to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC > converted to C++ before we switch to *building* stage1 with a C++ compiler. What is so puzzling about it? If we don't have a proof that what the GCC in C++ proponents are wanting is actually beneficial for GCC, then just switching building stage1 to C++ is not a step in the right direction, it removes options from those that build GCC or at least makes building GCC unnecessarily bigger hassle. If the switch followed by several conversions to C++ is done on a branch only and the merits are then judged afterwards, we don't do the problematic step on the trunk until it actually gives some benefits (if ever). Jakub