Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> writes: > [...] I do not think so, and I would not suggest that the use of > C++ is an excuse do ditch the possibility of bootstrapping with > anything other than GCC.
Right. It would be good to enumerate any language/design constraints that other noteworthy C++ compilers would impose on the GCC source base. The remaining language feature set could be noted as the "upper limit" of C++ being adopted. > As for the subset of C++ to use, yes we need to be conservative. [...] ... at least at first, as the gcc developer population learns the language. Whatever constraints are adopted for purposes of simplifying the language/system for C-only developers should be thought of as temporary "lower limits" that accomplish a gentle introduction. In the longer run, there may be no reason to hold back approaching the "upper limit" of the full language, as people learn and learn to love it. It may also help the training process to identify not just initial constraints on the language, but to name those parts of gcc that could most obviously benefit from C++y abstraction. These areas should be enumerated and analyzed by C++-familiar developers, to ensure that the initial "lower limit" feature set is sufficient to make a dent into those areas. - FChE
