Joe Buck - Re: Thoughts on LLVM and LTO (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Diego Novillo writes:

Over the last couple of years, there have been some half hearted attempts at suggesting C++ as a new implementation language for GCC. I would personally love to see us move to C++, but so far that has not happened.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:42:11PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:

C++ is not an issue that Chris can address or should be asked to

address. I will work with the GCC SC and FSF on that issue once the licensing issue is addressed and we know LLVM is a viable option.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:52:33PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

That covers the FSF issue, but the GCC developers have their own say in the question, too.

RMS has strongly objected to C++ use in the past, but of course there's no reason to bring up the subject with him unless and until there's developer consensus. So IMHO it's premature to have an SC or FSF discussion at this point ... sometimes a "heads up" message is wise, but I don't think so in this case.

Without going any further into this historically touchy subject, I'd just like to reiterate one point I made earlier: I think that at this time there would be concrete benefits to confining C++ to the optimizers, i.e. preserving the ability to bootstrap without a C++ compiler.

Yes, making bootstrapping more difficult is a real issue, but a mixed approach could add difficulties of its own.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]