On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 13:45, Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/3/2 Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com>: >> It already is. We bootstrap in C++ mode. I don't see a problem starting to >> move some code to C++. Whether this is a good chunk of code to convert is >> another question. > > Sorry, I should have been more precise and said "not the best first > module choice to convert to C++ and lose the ability to go back to > building in C."
I do not think we should look back. Trying to retain the ability to go back to C should not influence our design. > I agree that such conversion will have to be done at some point, but > I'm not sure if a big rewrite should happen way before the rest of the > code will start to use gengtype-annotated C++ data structures. Wait, I don't follow. gengtype supporting C++ data structures is different than writing gengtype in C++. Diego.
