From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25291 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 22:12:34 -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 25284 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 22:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO egil.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 22:12:33 -0000 Received: from zack by egil.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18qh7n-0000EK-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:12:31 -0800 To: Benjamin Kosnik Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, austern@apple.com Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end From: Zack Weinberg Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030305132044.4abee16f.bkoz@redhat.com> (Benjamin Kosnik's message of "Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:20:44 -0600") Message-ID: <87d6l5ihtc.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 References: <20030305132044.4abee16f.bkoz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 Benjamin Kosnik writes: >> I think the only really controversial question would be whether to allow >> partial specialization of templates. Everything else is a clear yes or a >> clear no. > > Please, let's stay on topic. Tom has requested, and has a valid need for: > > 1) full C++ class semantics, including construction/destruction > 2) exception handling > > I don't think it's necessary to debate that these requests are > reasonable, nor do I think it is necessary to define at this moment what > is acceptable use, now or in the future: that's for maintainers in the > future to deal with. These kind of limitations are precisely what has > put this whole question on the table. Everyone in this discussion is talking about *which* C++ features should be allowed, which is orthogonal to my original concern on this score. My concern is entirely about *where* C++ can safely be used, and my opinion at the present time is "only in front ends other than C/C++/Ada." We can easily arrange to have a fully functional g++ and libstdc++ available when those front ends are built, starting with only a C compiler. We can *not* easily ask everyone who currently builds GCC to install a C++ compiler for bootstrap purposes. I am personally familiar with an organization that still uses gcc 2.7.2 as a starting point for GCC builds. That's a bit extreme, but still. zw