On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100 Sylvain BERTRAND <sylw...@legeek.net> wrote:
> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can > boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime? > > Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll all the > "mandatory" c++ components in C quickly (harfbuzz, > gecko/webkit...), what to do? Any suggestions? Not that I'm aware of, beside I'm not sure what benefits this would bring? You're fine with C++ in one place, but not the other? > There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing > compiler written properly in C of course. > > Anything else? This is valid question on other hand e.g. base OpenBSD is C++ free for some time AFAIK (after the removal of groff). Idea of minimal set of tools, capable of rebuilding itself is attractive. On one hand, you can use pretty old GCC and most of C codebase will compile just fine (OpenBSD still uses patched GCC v4.2.1, which is more than six years old). C is stable - you will more likely see changes in standard C library, than compiler/language itself. GCC v4.7.x should work just fine for some years to come. C++ is different kind of beast. More and more software requires C++11 features and this means very recent version of compilers, especially since C++ standard libraries are developed inside the same projects (GCC/libstdc++, Clang/libc++). Sticking to GCC v4.7.x isn't an option here as far I can tell. The last problem: C99-capable compiler isn't enough to get usable system based on Linux. Clang which was designed as GCC drop-in replacement chokes on Linux kernel (some patches are needed), because it heavily uses GCC extensions and specific features (some undocumented/undefined). PCC/TCC aren't actively developed, I'm not sure about the status of firm/CParser. Still those alternative C compilers are just good enough for specific programs and not larger set of packages. -- Paul Onyschuk
