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.

Reply via email to