From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-114868-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17004 invoked by alias); 24 May 2005 16:18:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16845 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2005 16:18:07 -0000
Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (HELO nproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.182.205)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 16:18:07 +0000
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i2so25548nfe
        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 24 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.48.4.14 with SMTP id 14mr19388nfd;
        Tue, 24 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.48.143.6 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 09:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <84fc9c000505240918252b63d8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:41:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, 
	mark@codesourcery.com, dberlin@dberlin.org
In-Reply-To: <20050524160611.GA21996@topo.toronto.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <m364xapix6.fsf@merlin.cs.tamu.edu>
	 <20050524160611.GA21996@topo.toronto.redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg01306.txt.bz2

On 5/24/05, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:15:17AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>=20
> > So, if various components maintainers (e.g. C and C++, middle-end,
> > ports, etc.)  are willing to help quickly reviewing patches we can
> > have this done for this week (assuming mainline is unslushed soon).
> > And, of course, everybody can help :-)
> >
> If the final goal is to allow GCC components to be implemented in
> C++, then I am all in favour of this project.  I'm pretty sick of
> all this monkeying around we do with macros to make up for the
> lack of abstraction.

It's also a good test to see how/whether the different trees the C++ fronte=
nd
presents to the middle-end impact our ability to optimize gcc itself.  There
are quite some subtle differences out there asking to be "fixed", regardless
if we go to adopt C++ for writing gcc or not.

Richard.