From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31388 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2012 21:46:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 31377 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2012 21:46:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f173.google.com) (209.85.212.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:45:51 +0000 Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so3059881wib.8 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:45:49 -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=Hy/KLRx9NloUNktdz3kQ4QchFHiQD60DO3YJHxHMUkQ=; b=m/dAWSAdLojtdzO/79Q9pjSiNo+hgNnyXDIHQn2OgFujALfDPou5WgyJx36s3rbRGh 7U7ZEEQfaSYP+hgRIl36TjDK1l0w1JAeknV9sPm+wni7JIVz5ijsNmG4k1SO16nzIHTr AKx7hmcAQ0l9/4B8sFtsLQ99WrFO1RtB1TG2in6gpttRRBkOB0GIq64iqnVuDAuBjxws 3GNeS97ePkXXzcsoFB5L1Z7sSIe7kbIoQrRilrBIvXL9jPe1DddnbffSPV5VEPiprzUw ta/7Y2wtHeWqO4BBlo21uJKlE0kCW1wecl/lEf4krF3+O+30Zzj89IVTa0D9mG2miqtj nmOQ== Received: by 10.180.84.164 with SMTP id a4mr13292104wiz.2.1332711949812; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.84.164 with SMTP id a4mr13292096wiz.2.1332711949737; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.110.73 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201203252336.27605.ebotcazou@adacore.com> References: <20120325191937.a17b72873d088764c405a70f@starynkevitch.net> <201203251933.00029.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4F6F597F.5040105@google.com> <201203252336.27605.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: status of GCC & C++ From: Diego Novillo To: Eric Botcazou Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Basile Starynkevitch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlvJFGuwPr8svODrkXApU88W5AQ7hMqJeWM8mxitotq5EDpVw7ahAkktoa+RDjJS8aCVrEezF1baMy+nRWM6ljtBKprp1y0FAamKRov2CZnllpdOkhcdiZMZR2bMIRH7SqaaxJ+ 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve >> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). =C2=A0No point waiting to sett= le a >> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it. > > That isn't what was decided when the transition to C++ was proposed thoug= h. Really? To start *writing* in C++, sure we want at least an initial version of the coding guidelines. I pointed to those, because they look like a reasonable start. To start *building* in C++, I do not think we need to agree on the coding guidelines. We are already doing stages 2 and 3, doing stage 1 is a straightforward next step. > It was agreed that a set of Coding Conventions would be published before = the > switch to C++. =C2=A0If you think that the above conventions are in good = enough a > shape to be proposed, then propose them for inclusion in > =C2=A0http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html This needs to be done, yes. But not for simply building with C++. Diego.