On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Hendrik Boom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Ivan Levashew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many
Thank you for your thoughtful and patient reply. I should probably
apologize for the strident tone of my first letter to this mailing list.
It reflects a decades-long frustration with the trends in the computer
industry, rather than a specific critique of ggc development itself. Gcc
is a
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Ivan Levashew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
it works at all. In order to support STL containers
Ivan Levashew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC
objects, it will need to be modified.
I'm sure
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Ian,
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
C++ is too complicated!
with
Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable.
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
switch during bootstrap, so that any such coding
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Tom Tromey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian == Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
Ian containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
Ian how to generate code to traverse
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is a subset of C++ templates stable enough over the years, that can be
used without fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Absolutely. Can you specify this usable subset of C++ templates formally?
That would be valuable advice for maintainers. So that maintainers can decide
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Whether we use C or C++, we need to try to ensure that interfaces are
easy to understand, that the code is reasonably modular, that the
internal documentation corresponds to the code, that it is possible
for new developers to write new passes and to fix bugs.
Fully
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is a subset of C++ templates stable enough over the years, that can be
used without fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Absolutely. Can you specify this usable subset of C++ templates formally?
Kaveh == Kaveh R GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kaveh We could also extend -Wc++-compat to warn about more things, using C++
Kaveh reserved keywords like class in C comes to mind.
This isn't super hard, and IMO is worth doing (right now -Wc++-compat
seems almost silly in its limitations), but
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the level of C++ that new developers need to master, in order to
understand the code in general and to fix bugs in average areas?
I don't know. I think we will have to find out.
I expect that we will find it appropriate to use STL containers, as
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
Ivan Levashew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I expect that we will find it appropriate to use STL containers, as in
for (Type::iterator p = container.begin(); p != container.end(); ++p)
For loops like this I'd recommend using some kind of FOREACH macro (the
functional equivalent of BOOST_FOREACH; this is easy
How can maintainers ensure this does not happen?
What is your suggestion, stay with C? It doesn't have type safe enums
either.
One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
switch during
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
How can maintainers ensure this does not happen?
What is your suggestion, stay with C? It doesn't have type safe enums
either.
One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
built into the compiler (C++ front-end)
I've thought such a thing would be useful for C style as well.
Right. It just becomes more of an issue if people start using C++
which is a much more complex and large language, but it would also benefit
gcc developers today to have C coding standard checked automatically.
One slight
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
C++ is too complicated!
with
Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable.
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke a function.
It has
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
switch during bootstrap, so that any such coding style violation is
transformed
into an error
Yes, this can be the
Ian == Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
Ian containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
Ian how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
Ian used during GC. This is not a
Dear Ian,
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
C++ is too complicated!
with
Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable.
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke a function.
It has no buikt-in typesafe enums. Sooner
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Dear Ian,
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
C++ is too complicated!
with
Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable.
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke a
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C++. Here are my
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used during GC. This is not a task for the faint-hearted.
That's one of
Ivan Levashew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used during GC. This is not
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
[...] I believe some work could be done (maybe even on mainline) to
activate -Wc++-compat during bootstrap as a warning only, (not an
error). E.g.:
#pragma GCC diagnostic warning -Wc++-compat
This would help clean up some of the easy stuff
First, many thanks to Ian for stepping forward to make this happen.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
[...] I believe some work could be done (maybe even on mainline) to
activate -Wc++-compat during bootstrap as
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to
(1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks.
(2) use of C++ keywords as variable names.
(3) implicit conversion from void* to T* -- but we should have ver
few of those
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to
(1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks.
(2) use of C++ keywords as variable names.
(3)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop
Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I read through your slides and I'm interested in contributing. I didn't
see the presentation itself so I don't know if this suggestion is
redundant. However I believe some work could be done (maybe even on
mainline) to activate -Wc++-compat during
[ Dropping gcc-patches. ]
Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
anybody else may submit patches as well. The branch will follow the
usual gcc
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason I'm asking is that a fresh build o gcc-in-cxx dies on my machine
with
complains that `program' has conflicting declarations: once in
libcpp.h as having
C++ linkage, once in toplev.h with a C declaration.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yes. I'm working around that for now by editing toplev.h, to avoid
pushing libcpp and libiberty to C++ right away.
I'm not convinced there's much value in building libiberty as C++ for GCC,
given that it needs to remain buildable as C for now for
Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Yes. I'm working around that for now by editing toplev.h, to avoid
pushing libcpp and libiberty to C++ right away.
I'm not convinced there's much value in building libiberty as C++ for GCC,
given that
Am Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 08:01:35 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
anybody else may submit patches as well. The branch will follow the
usual gcc maintainership
Jens-Michael Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 08:01:35 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
anybody else may submit patches as well.
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 18:20:43 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Should the branch compile right now?
No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
addressed before all the code will compile in C++. Most
Jens-Michael Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
addressed before all the code will compile in C++. Most of this work
can and will be contributed back to
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
These are mechanical and can be fixed with simple casts. Again, IMHO
these non-controversial patches should go straight into mainline.
Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions.
Yes, I agree.
Ian
Okay, the patch to activate
Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, the patch to activate -Wc++-compat is installed on mainline. I'd
like to clean up some of the new warnings, but it sounds like you've got
some of this already done behind the scenes. E.g.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01264.html
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jens-Michael Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
addressed before all the code will
On Thursday 19 of June 2008 19:26:27 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jens-Michael Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
addressed before all the code will compile in C++.
Paweł Sikora [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's also a http://www.aei.mpg.de/~peekas/tree/ that may be useful
for modeling abstract trees used in compiler.
Thanks. I want to be clear that the initial goal of the gcc-in-cxx
branch will be to produce code which is quite close to mainline, but
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to avoid stomping on each other and duplicating work. Can you
tell me what you've already done and/or plan to do?
I have a bunch of patches, but as far as getting them into mainline
I'm
Hi,
Just in case you are interested in it I have a 4.2.1 compiling and built
using C++.
I have not really worked on it for quite a while now.
http://www.gccpp.org
Download at :-
http://www.gccpp.org/download/
Aaron
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I'll do fortran next, then some top level files. I'll post in this thread
which ones so we don't overlap. Please do the same.
Okay, I'm starting on the top level files. I'll go backwards through the
alphabet. Doing [t-z]* right now, that's
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C++. Here are my
presentation slides in PDF
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop
On 6/18/08 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C
[ I dropped gcc-patches from this reply. ]
Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/18/08 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta
Hi,
On 2008-06-17 23:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which
wwwdocs isn't branched, but there should be a version of
codingconventions.html with the conventions being followed for the use of
C++ on the branch. (Parts of the libstdc++ coding style may be relevant.)
I think a more conservative approach is needed to being buildable with a
range of
54 matches
Mail list logo
