On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue >> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem >> to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC >> converted to C++ before we switch to *building* stage1 with a C++ compiler. > > What is so puzzling about it?
what is puzzling is that if people believe it is pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++, why are they insisting to see that happen before *building* stage1 with a C++ compiler? > If we don't have a proof that what the GCC in > C++ proponents are wanting is actually beneficial for GCC, then just > switching building stage1 to C++ is not a step in the right direction, There is a distinction between converting existing codebase to C++ (which some people think is pointless) and making it possible to add *new functionalities* written in C++. > it removes options from those that build GCC or at least makes building > GCC unnecessarily bigger hassle. If that is your real point, how requiring people to rewrite GCC in C++ before the switch to *build* statge1 with a C++ compiler is going to fix that or address that? > If the switch followed by several conversions to C++ is done on a branch > only and the merits are then judged afterwards, we don't do the problematic > step on the trunk until it actually gives some benefits (if ever). But the primary goal isn't to convert GCC to C++, but to allow new functionalities to be written in C++. -- Gaby
