From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17030 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 07:41:19 -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 17023 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 07:41:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kanga.comsys.se) (62.95.120.145) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 07:41:18 -0000 Received: from comsys.se (zeta.sys.energyx.se [192.168.0.39]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by kanga.sys.energyx.se (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Debian 8.12.0.Beta19) with ESMTP id h257fGUr009081 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:41:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3E65AA1C.8050507@comsys.se> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:48:00 -0000 From: Lars Segerlund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021226 Debian/1.2.1-9 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00317.txt.bz2 So now we don't have a problem at all with bootstrap time ? Compile/bootstrap time is a real issue for a lot of people working with gcc & friends. This relating to bootstraping more code is good .... / Lars Segerlund. Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > >>>what if we only built the C front end, optimizers, and back end during >>>all three stages of a bootstrap? And then came back to build the other >>>front ends when we were done? >> >>I think this sounds like a really good idea. > > > No, it's not. Of course it depends on which parts you're interested. > But for me, bootstrapping more source is better than fewer for reasons > given in another mail from me. Building the compilers actually doesn't > take that much more time. Surely less time than libstdc++ and libjava. > > > Ciao, > Michael. > >