On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> Why not? If extern "C" is used correctly, the result will work just the
>> same,
>> and the improved type checking etc. would be an asset here just as it is
>> elsewhere.
>
> We don't use much C code, so the extra benefits wouldn't really be useful
> to us (we already get much more benefits by having most of the Ada run-time
> written in Ada), and having to deal with mixed C++/Ada by default in the
> Ada run-time can bring its own share or complexity that we shouldn't have
> to deal with by default.
>
> In addition, the GNAT run-time is built for many cross targets where requiring
> a cross C++ compiler would add lots of extra pain.
>
> Requiring a C++ native compiler for bootstrap is one thing (already an
> extra pain on some platforms), requiring a C++ cross compiler for building the
> run-time is just not an acceptable requirement.
Thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense.
paul
