Re: Allow C++ or C99 in sim/*?

[cgd@broadcom.com]

At Sat, 2 Aug 2003 00:16:31 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote:
> Should the simulator directories allow more modern languages?  I can
> see several options:
> 
> - C99 which would allow C++ comments:
> 	// a comment
> and declarations anywhere:
> 	foo (); int i; bar ()
> and access to int32 et.al. types.  What else?

C99 isn't necessarily completely implemented, as has been pointed out.

While i occasionally like to use // comments, and find them more
visually appealing than /* */ comments, i don't think there's a strong
win in using them.

declarations "anywhere," IMO, just clutter things.  Personally, i'd
limit declarations to start of blocks and to perhaps one or two other
places, e.g. declaring local vars for use in 'for' loops.  ("for int i
= ...")

However, these things have been in c++ for a while, right?


> - C++ which would also allow access to objects and (ulgh?) templates
> (replacement for the sim-endian macro stuff?)

If the sim tree goes there to any large extent, then it would force
some simulator maintainers to learn C++.  I don't see that happening
any time soon, at least for one particular maintainer...  8-)


I guess it wouldn't hurt (much) to:

* make infrastructure compatible (to the extent easily possible),

* tolerate use of some (relatively minor) new language features in
  existing simulator code, and

* *possibly* encourage implementors of new sims to do so in different
  languages.


I must also say that performance *is* a concern.  Our goal in doing
sim work was to be able to real code (i.e., "telnet into the operating
system running on the simulator, communicating via the simulated
ethernet device which talks out on the real network...").  If
improving the system meant slowing it down much, then that would be a
real lose.

(honestly, i don't know enough about modern C++ to know if using it
extensively is likely to mean decrease in performance... but it's not
clear that there's great incentive for me to find out.  8-)



chris