From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-69684-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28720 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2003 20:57:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28696 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 20:57:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 20:57:11 -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 h24KsdH2028829;
	Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:54:40 +0100
Received: (from gdr@localhost)
	by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h24KsdBv028828;
	Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:54:39 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
Cc: Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com>, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com,
   Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>, Rupert Wood <me@rupey.net>,
   gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Putting C++ code into gcc front end
References: <200303041445.h24Ejhb15458@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
	<87ptp711nj.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>
	<20030304174003.GA15255@disaster.jaj.com>
	<jm8yvuvov8.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
In-Reply-To: <jm8yvuvov8.fsf@desire.geoffk.org>
Organization: Integrable Solutions
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 21:01:00 -0000
Message-ID: <m3wuje3l9t.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2

Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:

| Phil Edwards <phil@jaj.com> writes:
| 
| > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:29:04AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
| > > Ignoring Ada for the moment, what if we only built the C front end,
| > > optimizers, and back end during all three stages of a bootstrap?  And
| > > then came back to build the other front ends when we were done?
| > 
| > I've always been confused why the C++ frontend was rebuilt multiple times
| > during a bootstrap; actually assumed that it was done for some kind of odd
| > binutils compatability or hysterical raisins.  Please, if this is possible,
| > let's do it.  Bootstrap times will go down as a nice side-effect.
| 
| It's a test of the C compiler.  It verifies that the un-optimised C
| compiler generates the same code as the optimised C compiler.

Such a test is done when bootstrapping the C compiler proper.

The point is: multiple builds of the C++ front-end is a waste of time
when your interest is in C++ ;-)

-- Gaby