On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 September 2010 00:16, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez >> <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I understand the benefit that existed before clang. And my general >>>> understanding is that clang C++ support is not yet complete, so there is >>>> a benefit there, but only a temporary one. I don't see a real benefit >>>> going forward. >>> >>> Access to all the other GCC front-ends that the LLVM project has not >>> (yet) reimplemented? Someone provided above a real user-case for >>> gcc->llvm involving Fortran. I don't think dragon-egg development is >>> stalled at all. >> >> And some (including yours truly) consider this little more than theft. >> Especially since there is GCC-bashing on the one side, and taking the >> bits they like on the other. >> >> >>>> Since for me benefits to users of gcc are pretty much the same as >>>> benefits to gcc, yes, I see a benefit. >>> >>> By that rule, it is clearly beneficial for some gcc users to compile >>> Fortran using dragon-egg to take advantage of OpenCL. Ergo, dragon-egg >>> is beneficial to GCC. >> >> No it "is" not, you "think it is", i.e. opinion. Again, I don't share >> that opinion at all, because this means there is less motivation for >> developers to add OpenCL to GCC itself. > > In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less > motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs. So I guess > you are against this as well. But then, just a few mails above, you > are the one who proposed adding clang to gcc in the first place. > Sorry, it seems a contradiction to me and I cannot get my head around > it.
So perhaps your guess is not right? You're using sophisms: First you "guess" what my goals are, and then you go on to show apparent contradictions. But actually, I think it may be the right thing for GCC to replace the front ends altogether with clang. Note: Maybe. There are clear advantages and disadvantages, and only time (and experimenting) will tell whether it will actually happen or not. Trying it with ObjC and ObjC++ first would be an interesting feasibility study. I personally do not believe that there is much value in maintaining GNU ObjC/ObjC++. The community of users is small and there are barely enough maintainers to sustain these front ends. In GCC, these languages will probably always be less important than C/C++, but in clang they are 1st class citizens. So what I meant to say in those "few mails above" is that time spent on plugging clang into gcc may be worth more than trying to forward-port about a decade of ObjC development from the Apple/NEXT compilers and runtimes to GCC. Ciao! Steven
