On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:15:27AM +0200, Anaël Seghezzi wrote: > Personally I don't see converting C++ to C as practical or realistic, just > because of the complexity of modern c++. > > To have, lets say, a C++11 to C99 compiler would require a huge and complex > compiler, it might even require something like clang, so why use TCC as a > back-end ? > Selecting only a subset of c++ features is almost like designing another > language, modern code base won't compile on it. > It's probably saner to use (or design) another language than c++ to compile > to C.
I second your argumentation, considering that there is already that "another language" - which is C++ as it was at cfront time. That dialect is practically useful and it is also known that its translator to C (including all features of the cfront3-dialect) can be quite compact by today's measure. It is also compatible to the "bigger" C++ for programs written with portability in mind. >From this perspective it is both practical and realistic to translate that language to C, whether or not it would be called "C++". Rune _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
