On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 08:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > The project I'm proposing is not to move to C++. Just to move to the > intersection of C and C++, which is what we had agreed on in previous > discussions. Someone needs to implement those decisions, that is what > I'm trying to do (of course, anyone who can help is welcome).
I know that, I was trying to find a compromise with respect to Zack's comment on freezing the C++ library ABI and of the potential future benefits. Now, if you need some help, and can set some focussed goals (to someone who does not know gcc internals so well), I can try. I think the work you do is a very useful step. > Then, whether GCC should actually use C++, simple overloading, super > inheritance and hyper though template hackery is completely separate > issue. We may have those discussions but if we're not actually in any > way to be able to test the conjectures, then the whole discussion is > pointless. Again, my mail was more an answer to the point 2) of Zack's idea: that 1) your work would be useful only if there is some transition to C++ and 2) thus a stable C++ library was need. I agree with all the comments you made that what you do is useful even if 1) is not a route that will be followed (at the very least, it opens the possibility). My remark was only concerning the point 2) that do not seem to me a necessary consequence of 1). I waited for someone else to make the comment, and to my surprise the discussion focussed of the need to freeze libstdc++, thus my posting. > When the time comes to actually introduce C++ in GCC, we could have > the discussion of what to freeze. As you may or may not have noticed, > libstdc++ people are trying hard to keep the ABI stable. It also has > its own downsides -- there are bugs that we cannot fix and they are > known and implemented improvements we cannot benefit from. Again I know that (at least to some extent). Again, all my apologies if my mail was hinting the opposite.