From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26920 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 14:45:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 26827 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 14:45:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.213.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:44:50 +0000 Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so509583yen.20 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:44:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.18.163 with SMTP id x3mr22173107oed.64.1334155489161; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.111.99 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:44:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120411132813.GC16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> 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> <20120411132813.GC16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 From: David Edelsohn To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Bernd Schmidt , Eric Botcazou , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Miles Bader , Torvald Riegel , Xinliang David Li , Richard Guenther , Diego Novillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00420.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue >> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem >> to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC >> converted to C++ before we switch to *building* stage1 with a C++ compil= er. > > What is so puzzling about it? =A0If we don't have a proof that what the G= CC in > C++ proponents are wanting is actually beneficial for GCC, then just > switching building stage1 to C++ is not a step in the right direction, > it removes options from those that build GCC or at least makes building > GCC unnecessarily bigger hassle. > If the switch followed by several conversions to C++ is done on a branch > only and the merits are then judged afterwards, we don't do the problemat= ic > step on the trunk until it actually gives some benefits (if ever). Part of the reason this discussion is not reaching a consensus is because it is not addressing the real issue. The challenge is how to make GCC an attractive platform for developers -- how to attract new developers. Among FOSS compilers, LLVM attracts developers. Other than licensing and politics and marketing, the anecdotal comments from developers mention C++ as a technical reason. And other than existing GCC developers who are comfortable with the current C codebase, I think some participants in this thread are concerned that the C++ complaint is a red herring. In other words, some developers resist GCC because it does not match their comfort zone and when asked for a technical reason, C++ is an easy answer. I think some members of the GCC community have a nagging concern that even if GCC goes through the pain of transitioning to C++, it will not move the ball on attracting developers, but will divert resources and will discourage existing developers. We can experiment with C++ for style and debugging and optimization. But, fundamentally, we cannot perform the real experiment which is: Will transitioning GCC to G++ attract more developers to GCC. - David