Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-18 Thread Toon Moene

On 05/18/2011 05:41 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:


On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Toon Moenet...@moene.org  wrote:



On 05/17/2011 08:32 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:


Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {, m32} with --enable-build-with-cxx.
Committed to mainline SVN as obvious.


Does that mean that I can now remove the --disable-werror from my daily C++
bootstrap run ?


Well, that certainly worked, as exemplified by this:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-05/msg01890.html

At least that would enable my daily run (between 18:10 and 20:10 UTC) to 
catch -Werror mistakes ...



It's great that some people understand the intricacies of the
infight^H^H^H^H^H^H differences between the C and C++ type model.

OK: 1/2 :-)


I suspect this infight would vanish if we just switched, as we discussed
in the past.


Perhaps it would just help if we implemented the next step of the plan 
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx):


# it would be a good thing to try forcing the C++ host compiler 
requirement for GCC 4.[7] with just building stage1 with C++ and 
stage2/3 with the stage1 C compiler. --disable-build-with-cxx would be a 
workaround for a missing C++ host compiler.


Of course, that still wouldn't make it possible to implement C++ 
solutions for C hacks because the --disable-build-with-cxx crowd would 
cry foul over this ...


--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news


Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-18 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Toon Moene t...@moene.org wrote:
 On 05/18/2011 05:41 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

 On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Toon Moenet...@moene.org  wrote:

 On 05/17/2011 08:32 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:

 Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {, m32} with --enable-build-with-cxx.
 Committed to mainline SVN as obvious.

 Does that mean that I can now remove the --disable-werror from my daily
 C++
 bootstrap run ?

 Well, that certainly worked, as exemplified by this:

 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-05/msg01890.html

 At least that would enable my daily run (between 18:10 and 20:10 UTC) to
 catch -Werror mistakes ...

 It's great that some people understand the intricacies of the
 infight^H^H^H^H^H^H differences between the C and C++ type model.

 OK: 1/2 :-)

 I suspect this infight would vanish if we just switched, as we discussed
 in the past.

 Perhaps it would just help if we implemented the next step of the plan
 (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx):

 # it would be a good thing to try forcing the C++ host compiler requirement
 for GCC 4.[7] with just building stage1 with C++ and stage2/3 with the
 stage1 C compiler. --disable-build-with-cxx would be a workaround for a
 missing C++ host compiler.

Or the other way around, build stage1 with the host C compiler, add
C++ to stage1-languages and build stage2/3 with the stageN C++ compiler.
That avoids the host C++ compiler requirement for now and excercises
the libstdc++ linking issues.

But yes, somebody has to go forward to implement either (or both) variants.

Not that I'm too excited to see GCC built with a C++ compiler (or even C++
features being used).

Richard.


Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-18 Thread Toon Moene

On 05/18/2011 10:31 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:


Not that I'm too excited to see GCC built with a C++ compiler (or even C++
features being used).


Hmmm, you think using false as a value for a pointer-returning 
function is just A-OK ?


Duh, I'm glad I'm using Fortran, where the programmer isn't even 
supposed to know what the value of .FALSE. is, because it is 
implementation dependent.


--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news


Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-18 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Toon Moene t...@moene.org wrote:
 On 05/18/2011 10:31 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:

 Not that I'm too excited to see GCC built with a C++ compiler (or even C++
 features being used).

 Hmmm, you think using false as a value for a pointer-returning function is
 just A-OK ?

No, it isn't ;)

Richard.

 Duh, I'm glad I'm using Fortran, where the programmer isn't even supposed to
 know what the value of .FALSE. is, because it is implementation dependent.

 --
 Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
 At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
 Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news



Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-17 Thread Toon Moene

On 05/17/2011 08:32 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:


Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {, m32} with --enable-build-with-cxx.
Committed to mainline SVN as obvious.


Does that mean that I can now remove the --disable-werror from my daily 
C++ bootstrap run ?


It's great that some people understand the intricacies of the 
infight^H^H^H^H^H^H differences between the C and C++ type model.


OK: 1/2 :-)

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news


Re: [PATCH]: Restore bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx

2011-05-17 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Toon Moene t...@moene.org wrote:
 On 05/17/2011 08:32 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:

 Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {, m32} with --enable-build-with-cxx.
 Committed to mainline SVN as obvious.

 Does that mean that I can now remove the --disable-werror from my daily C++
 bootstrap run ?

 It's great that some people understand the intricacies of the
 infight^H^H^H^H^H^H differences between the C and C++ type model.

 OK: 1/2 :-)

I suspect this infight would vanish if we just switched, as we discussed
in the past.

-- Gaby