From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21216 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 08:35:14 -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 21202 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 08:35:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 08:35:11 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h248WPH2025819; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:32:25 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h248WP2O025818; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:32:25 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Zack Weinberg Cc: tromey@redhat.com, GCC Hackers Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end References: <87of4rnc0c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <877kbf3btx.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <874r6j37mi.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <874r6j37mi.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 Zack Weinberg writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis writes: | | > I don't think this is much worse than the current situation where one | > needs to have g++ + libstdc++-v3 built if one wants Java. | | It's at least incrementally more trouble. Right now, starting with | just a C compiler, you can get a Java compiler without having to build | and install C++ first. You don't need to install C++ first. You just need to build C++. And you have to do that anyway if you want libjava/verify.cc. So that is a non-issue. | > And bootstrap for C++ front-end is currently an oxymoron: it is just a | > bootstrap for the C compiler. | | I consider this a feature. Clearly, we do not have the same definition of feature. I consider a definition of "boostrapping the C++ compiler" which just means "bootstrapping the C compiler" a bug. -- Gaby