From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30128 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 17:10:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 30117 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 17:10:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com (HELO mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:10:31 +0000 Received: by lagw12 with SMTP id w12so903343lag.20 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=3MPGIe51/Dl8+bHhPl1cgS4clWxP2LfZuGChscaThk0=; b=I6gABU17LOyDC2OMOvVr9YaOhly7pgWAskntmGjbCaArQRtGj9NGM3nv2Z4E16t/Pf ii7LTOhSw2YGyhiiViMT32K76oKvhhKgDqYFIGCJa14dCM3BmGFOdCOHkwQQXaKSt2d5 a/sZsIGcQ0lWiNLUEJOSMlJ1N3Gs6/KVG+dnbqRDtVNAcVP7dFcaVxGrDILFNjj1PHQz YGHPVN7Cixq/UHJSCRu8k259fdOxrH7I7iOC9+JlzLaKmSzrhfEvBZIrQmTnOMYWwJJD gRedrBqppUypy2IUqPsmhfXjZO+FjBxDIcjsoqJfcwuNgDkAc8M4aIQBbW1GciE7H3wC Isew== Received: by 10.112.101.67 with SMTP id fe3mr3258536lbb.52.1334164230100; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.101.67 with SMTP id fe3mr3258518lbb.52.1334164229892; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.4.233 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <87lim3p8pv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4F84B448.4090208@codesourcery.com> <201204110127.30744.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20120411070150.GM6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <4F857A44.4030202@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 From: Xinliang David Li To: Richard Guenther Cc: Bernd Schmidt , Gabriel Dos Reis , Jakub Jelinek , Eric Botcazou , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Miles Bader , Torvald Riegel , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlzKZIFXEfeMTZ0PMINf/ZmS1QcHDKa4rDL9zMGArTUn4XN2Ubb28fU+8b413oapMaFk0OTBtrJ3erMg3oVwH24qEmI8QHRop+pVeZq9SQW8ZqMRGz2uuyt8N3Q1gS28DUaxH8A X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bernd Schmidt = wrote: >> On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and >>> the goal post moving. >>> Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we >>> switch to C++? >> >> Frankly, despite all this discussion, we still don't really know what >> the people who insist on a C++ conversion actually want to do. We've >> seen trivial suggestions like rewriting vec.[ch], which isn't really >> going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but >> everything else has remained vague. At the GCC gathering last year we >> saw a presentation which made me feel like language features had just >> gone in search of possible applications, which doesn't fill me with a >> lot of confidence either. >> >> So yes, I would like some significant part rewritten in the way the C++ >> folks would like to see it, so we can actually judge what we will get. >> And that's moving my personal goal post from "hell no" somewhere closer >> to what the C++ proponents would like. >> >> The incremental approach (tearing down the barrier of stage1 being >> compiled in C first and then getting things in piecewise) may seem like >> a path of less resistance, but we can't afford to have a thread like >> this for every change, and I wouldn't like to see us decide after 100 >> patches that the end result sucks and we have to either live with it or >> revert the lot. >> >> IMO, gimple might be worth trying to convert, since it's the newest code >> in gcc and presumably already half-way to what people consider a >> "modern" style (lots of annoying little functions that get in the way >> while debugging). >> >> But I suspect that when such a branch has been done, it will still come >> down to personal preference as to which variant is best. This is why I >> still think the whole thing is deeply misguided, as it's not about >> objective technical issues, but merely about language preferences, and >> everyone has a different one. You can't match everyone's taste in a big >> project, and thus real developers have to adapt to a project, not the >> other way round. Discussions like this are a toxic distraction from real >> work. >> >> IMO it would be best if we could find a majority of global reviewers to >> speak out and say once and for all "no, this just isn't happening", so >> we can drop all this nonsense and get back to improving the compiler for >> users. The second best thing would be to have a branch with actual work >> done for us to consider. > > Frankly I'd say the second best thing is the first best thing. =A0Show us= the > code! =A0Then we decide. =A0It does not work the other way around. > That may not be always the best strategy to move forward. Some level of discussions and agreement can be reached I think. thanks, David > Richard.