On Mon, 31 May 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
I would even imagine that later, one could configure GCC to have only a
C++ front-end, but no more a C one. That probably would be unusual,
since many important applications which want to be compiled by GCC (I am
thinking of the Linux kernel)
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
I also notice that all cc1 binaries are dynamically linked against
libstdc++ - didn't we want to use -static-libstdc++ and link against
the libstdc++ we bootstrap?
Yes, that is stated in Ian's slides. There are a series of related
configure
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com
wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
1- Should we switch to C++?
Yes.
2- What is the cost in terms of
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
On 06/01/2010 08:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 14:00, Toon Moenet...@moene.org wrote:
On 06/01/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
After fixing build locally I now have
Are you planning to commit the fixes - I don't mind being a guinea pig in
this - I have been
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
‘char* basename(const char*)’
/usr/include/string.h:601:
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de:
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
‘char*
* Joern Rennecke wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:11:03PM CEST:
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues:
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
4- Should we make the switch during the 4.6 stage 1?
My suggestion: put something in one common file that requires C++, just
to force the use of C++ compilers, but with a comment that says If you
can't build this file, comment out the following and file
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide
whether we switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
questions:
1- Should we switch to C++?
2- What is the cost in terms of build time?
3- What coding guidelines should we use?
4- Should we make the switch
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
1- Should we switch to C++?
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to
On 10-05-31 12:50 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that some
components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they can be
linked with other part written in C?
Ideally, the former. If we cannot get consensus on that,
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 10-05-31 12:50 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that some
components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they can
be
linked with other part
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
there a thread I missed?
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 13:21, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
there a thread I missed?
Diego Novillo wrote:
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that
some
components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they
can be
linked with other part written in C?
Ideally, the former. If we cannot get consensus on that, then I guess
we'd
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Diego Novillo wrote:
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that
some
components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they
can be
linked with other part written in C?
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see how
we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
least
for the parts that use tree.h. By components, I meant for example, is it the
case that the C++ front-end
Am 31.05.2010 20:50, schrieb Mark Mitchell:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see
how
we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
least
for the parts that use tree.h. By components, I meant for
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see
how
we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
least
for the parts that use
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
OK, I will reformulate my question to you and Diego is: is this what we want,
e.g. C++ as THE common implementation language, or just ONE common
implementation language (the other being C)?
I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
implement
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 15:33, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
implement all of GCC, including front-ends, back-ends, and common code.
Where we currently use C, we wish to instead use C++.
That's what I want as
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 15:33, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote:
I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
implement all of GCC, including front-ends, back-ends, and common code.
On 05/31/2010 06:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide
whether we switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
questions:
H, when I voted yes on the question Requiring C++ Compiler for
GCC Builds (that was the subject
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:33 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
OK, I will reformulate my question to you and Diego is: is this what we
want,
e.g. C++ as THE common implementation language, or just ONE common
implementation language (the other being C)?
I believe
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
You forgot to mention plugins. In my understanding, any future GCC
plugin would necessarily be coded in C++ and be compiled by a C++
compiler. Am I right?
Not necessarily. If we felt it desirable, the interface exposed for
plug-ins could be C, not C++. However, I
On May 31, 2010, at 14:25, Mark Mitchell wrote:
That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to use lots of C++ features
everywhere. We can use the C (almost) subset of C++ if we want to in
some places. As an example, if the Fortran folks want to use C in the
Fortran front-end, then -- except
Geert Bosch wrote:
If we're just going to get some new power tools for our workshop
and let people have at it, the lessons we'll learn might end up
being more about what not to do, rather than a show case of their
effective use.
That's why we're not doing that. Instead, we're going to
29 matches
Mail list logo
