On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> 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.
yes, I do think the choice of language is NOT a detail -- and I do not understand that "detailed" means "just a detail". > > 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? Well, I hope someone would come and explain why an efficiency factor of more than "5" is something that should be dismissed because the software was originally written in C, but has now been written in C++. -- Gaby
