On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote: >> But IMHO not sufficient for a switch. The GCC C++ proponents should do >> more on a branch to convince. Yes, the syntactic suger for vec.h isn't >> very nice, but the actual implementation is very clever and heavily tuned >> for GCC's needs; if we convert to C++ just because of vec.[ch], we open >> ourselves to what is being discussed in this thread, people who would like >> to turn GCC codebase into yet another LLVM, which not everybody finds >> actually very readable and maintainable code, would start doing so. > > Maybe, but if we don't convert vec.[ch], there is no point in using C++ at > all.
Definitely agreed. > We could put in place a strict containment policy: no one is allowed to write > non-C code for modules that haven't been explicitly approved. Conversions on > a module level are done on a branch and merged into mainline as a whole. And > state prominently that there is no long term goal towards a complete rewrite > of the compiler in full-blown C++, so that people don't waste time making big > plans for such a rewrite. That's why we use C for building stage1 ;) And we should continue to do so until a sufficient part of GCC uses C++ in a way people agree to (thus, people, please start a branch). Richard. > -- > Eric Botcazou
