On Mar 1, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-03-02, at 03:22, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 1 Mar 2005 at 8:17, James A. Morrison wrote:
Hi,
I've decided I'm going to try to take the time and cleanup and update
the
Pascal frontend for gcc and try it get it integrated into the upstream
source. I'm doing this because I wouldn't like to see GPC work with GCC
4+. I don't care at all at supporting GPC on anything less than GCC 4.1
so I've started by ripping out as much obviously compatibility code as I
can and removing any traces of GPC being a separate project.
My guess is that inclusion of Pascal into gcc would give that language more exposure and would lead to faster development.
I object it. There is no single application of importance in pascal for me
other then TeX, which GPC doesn't handle anyway. It's not worth the bandwidth for me and
like java it's another candidate which will drag a ton of library framework with
itself later on. Like java it would significantly impede any attempt to do full coverage
builds of the whole compiler tree.
Actually I disagree with you GPC is much smaller than Java, and doing full converage
for a large project like GCC is sometimes a hard thing to do anyways. In fact it
is even harder than you thing, especially with code added (in reload) to do any
full coverage. Who cares it gets slower or more impractical to do what you are doing
as it gives really more coverage to GCC and the middle-end more than any doing nothing.
I don't know why I replied to this thread but I did. Well I think we should have
no more on this thread unless it is about technical reasons why GPC cannot be
included, or political (FSF/SC decides it is not a good thing).
-- Pinski
