From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30279 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 17:30:47 -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 30233 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 17:30:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO egil.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 17:30:44 -0000 Received: from zack by egil.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18qGFU-0006bk-00; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:30:40 -0800 To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: tromey@redhat.com, GCC Hackers Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end From: Zack Weinberg Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Gabriel Dos Reis's message of "04 Mar 2003 09:32:25 +0100") Message-ID: <87n0kb11kv.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.2 References: <87of4rnc0c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <877kbf3btx.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <874r6j37mi.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > | > And bootstrap for C++ front-end is currently an oxymoron: it is just a > | > bootstrap for the C compiler. > | > | I consider this a feature. > > Clearly, we do not have the same definition of feature. > > I consider a definition of "boostrapping the C++ compiler" which just > means "bootstrapping the C compiler" a bug. Terminological confusion. I consider it a feature that bootstrapping GCC (the entire collection) exercises only the C (and Ada) compilers; in other words I think it is desirable _not_ to bootstrap the C++ front end. zw