From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12306 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 18:26:56 -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 12294 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 18:26:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (69.3.5.6) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 18:26:55 -0000 Received: from [128.164.132.31] (account dberlin HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 3067066; Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:26:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:37:00 -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: Steven Bosscher , Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Olivier Galibert , Gabriel Dos Reis , Rupert Wood , gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: Phil Edwards From: Daniel Berlin In-Reply-To: <20030304173611.GA15124@disaster.jaj.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Phil Edwards wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:06:29PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> Op di 04-03-2003, om 15:45 schreef Richard Earnshaw: >>>> Is it reasonable in 2003 to have a quite complex compiler written in >>>> K&R C? Not even ISO C? >>> >>> The last time this came up (probably less than 6 months ago), the >>> answer >>> was "yes". We've been round this discussion before. Let's not >>> rehash all >>> the same old arguments again. >> >> I believe that the answer was: "Yes, because we have exactly one >> platform that does not come with an ISO C compiler (HPUX). We will >> look >> at this issue again in the 3.4 time frame". > > Daniel Berlin wrote what is IMHO the best and most precise summary of > all > arguments for removing the K&R requirement: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-01/msg00675.html > > Note the "HP agrees with us" bit. and in case people are curious where i drew that conclusion from, i noticed that i forgot to mention sources. Just so one doesn't think i'm making it up, it's repeated by HP people at every turn. For example: http://h21007.www2.hp.com/hpux-devtools/CXX/hpux-devtools.0203/0017.html (Note: "Not suitable for application development") In fact, "The bundled C compiler, strictly speaking, shouldn't be referred to as a K&R compiler either. It's really just been given enough features to be able to compile the kernel." (from an email i don't have a URL because it was forwarded to me by an HP person). That made me laugh a bit, then cry. --Dan