From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-71489-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4025 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2003 00:33:23 -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 4016 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2003 00:33:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO egil.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2003 00:33:23 -0000
Received: from zack by egil.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 191y5x-0005gj-00; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 16:33:13 -0800
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>,  mark@codesourcery.com,
	  gcc@gcc.gnu.org,  gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Subject: Re: Converting to ISO C89
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 02:46:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <or8yuopmoo.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> (Alexandre
 Oliva's message of "05 Apr 2003 20:08:23 -0300")
Message-ID: <87d6k0h3cm.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090018 (Oort Gnus v0.18) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)
References: <200303250642.h2P6gZ4r025932@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>
	<m3llz3btqx.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<1048612019.25895.7.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>
	<200303251752.MAA08671@caip.rutgers.edu>
	<or8yuopmoo.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mar 25, 2003, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>> IMHO once we've decided to require ISO C89 to bootstrap, we should
>> remove gcc-isms from the cp/ dir and compile cc1plus during stage1.
>> We can perhaps condition cc1plus during stage1 iff java is enabled.
>
>> Then java (and all other) frontends can use C++ wherever it makes
>> sense.
>
> It's not that simple, unfortunately.  Without libstdc++, there's not
> much of C++ any language can possibly use.

This is true, but I think Kaveh's patches are worthwhile anyway.

> /me thinks if we're to use C++ in the compiler, it makes more sense to
> require a complete, functional C++ compiler upfront, and use it in all
> stages.

Or we could do as I suggested before and bootstrap *only* the C (and
Ada, if requested) compiler, then build the other front ends with
their runtime libraries.

zw