On 08/30/2012 01:43 PM, Nikos Fotoulis wrote: > The cxx-conversion idea does not come without its cons. The most > important for us is that there will not be a plain gcc-core package > that is smaller, builds faster a plain C compiler with a smaller > binary and is able to bootstrap future versions of a plain C > compiler made of the latest vesion of gcc. The con is recursive. > > The pros are two as far as i can see: > > 1) The C++ frontend will be put to the test in the bootstrap > proccess. This one indeed has some value. > > 2) The gcc codebase can become cleaner and/or faster. This one is > arguable and it would take some real numbers to prove the extra > bootstrap time is worth it. > > Please note that i'm speaking as someone who is developing software > that is strictly C (and many projects are like that, including > python, perl, ffmpeg, linux-kernel, etc, etc) and i'm interested to > get the latest gcc-core snapshot occassionaly to test both gcc and > my software. And the explosion of the tarball size and bootstrap > time lately is very discouraging.
But, as a C developer, why do you care if GCC is written in C++? What difference will that make to you? Bear in mind that we have had the discussion about C++ conversion for a long time, and we have considered the pros and the cons, and we have made a decision. Andrew.
