On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Richard Kenner > > <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: > >>> Yes, surely you have heard of stonewalling use of C++ to directly > >>> express some of the abstractions we use in the compiler. > >> > >> Those are hardly detailed technical issues, > > > > So, from your perspective, a request > > > > to use (a subset of) C++ for compiling GCC > > > > is hardly detailed technical issue. > > Well... The language to write your software in is not really a detail, > but it's certainly a technical issue. > > But anyway, is the official position of the FSF still "thou shall use > not C++"? That would mean GNU binutils is in violation with gold, no?
The GNU Coding Standards express a strong preference for C, but the GNU Coding Standards are treated as guidelines for GCC, to be followed unless we have good technical reasons to do otherwise. When we do, we do not seek FSF or SC permission in each case, just consensus among the developers. Following the GNU Coding Standards is not part of the Mission Statement so would not be grounds for a veto; the FSF would need to explain why "Supporting the goals of the GNU project, as defined by the FSF." requires using C to veto C++ if a technical consensus arises to use C++ (or some other reason why a veto doesn't violate "Patches will be considered equally based on their technical merits."). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
