From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8338 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 18:18:54 -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 8326 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 18:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 18:18:54 -0000 Received: from gnat.com (darwin.gnat.com [205.232.38.44]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC74F2942; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:18:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:26:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Olivier Galibert , Gabriel Dos Reis , Rupert Wood , gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: Zack Weinberg From: Geert Bosch In-Reply-To: <87ptp711nj.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 12:29 America/New_York, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Ignoring Ada for the moment, 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? At that point, using C++ in the Java front end becomes > substantially less hassle: we just have to make sure the C++ > front end and runtime library are built first. This effectively > puts each front end on the same footing as its runtime library. I think this is a really good idea, I don't really see any strong arguments for building the C++ compiler twice. The argument against is that we're wasting everybody's time and needlessly complicate build procedures and restrict ourselves to whatever system compiler happens to be around instead of using our own product. -Geert