I'm prone to want it included. If it becomes a problem, it can always be removed.
One thing that bothered me was the idea that --enable-languages=all might not really mean "all languages". Perhaps the RHS could be something that indicates only primary, primary+secondary, etc. That's independent of Algol. Have there been any reports of testing on architectures besides x86_64? --joel On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 3:07 AM Iain Sandoe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 21 Oct 2025, at 21:32, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hello Steering Committee! > > > > Back in January a WIP patch series incorporating an Algol 68 Front-End > > [1] to GCC was sent to gcc-patches. Shortly after, in February, a > > request to the Steering Committee was made to consider officially > > accepting the Front-End in GCC, if perhaps a bit prematurely. The SC > > decided to not merge the front-end at that time, the reasons for > > rejection being a) a concern about the potential additional maintenance > > and development burden of having the incipient front-end in a release of > > GCC and b) a cost-benefit analysis that somehow resulted as > > non-favorable towards Algol 68. > > I would also like to add my support to the inclusion of this front end. > > From the point of view of those of us who maintain parts of the compiler > on a voluntary basis it is always very encouraging when a new component > is introduced without any issues showing up on our targets. > > Algol68 built almost from the very begining (I think a handful of trivial > changes > were needed) and tests (without fails) on modern Darwin, which is quite an > accomplishment. > > +1 to comments from Richi and others about the message that we should > be sending - and the accepted mechanisms for dealing with things that > bitrot. > > thanks > Iain > >
