Thank you for your thoughtful and patient reply. I should probably
apologize for the strident tone of my first letter to this mailing list.
It reflects a decades-long frustration with the trends in the computer
industry, rather than a specific critique of ggc development itself. Gcc
is a won
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
the existing gengtype code is simple
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
>>> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
>>> it works at all. In order to support ST
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
>> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
>> it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC
>> objects, it will need to be modified.
>
>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I expect that we will find it appropriate to use STL containers, as in
for (Type::iterator p = container.begin(); p != container.end(); ++p)
For loops like this I'd recommend using some kind of FOREACH macro (the
functional equivalent of BOOST_FOREACH; this is easy t
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used d
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the level of C++ that "new developers" need to master, in order to
> understand the code in general and to fix bugs in average areas?
I don't know. I think we will have to find out.
I expect that we will find it appropriate to use STL container
> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kaveh> We could also extend -Wc++-compat to warn about more things, using C++
Kaveh> reserved keywords like "class" in C comes to mind.
This isn't super hard, and IMO is worth doing (right now -Wc++-compat
seems almost silly in its limita
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the level of C++ that "new developers" need to master, in order to
> understand the code in general and to fix bugs in average areas?
>
> Bruno
What is covered in `Accelerated C++' by A. Koenig should be enough, I
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> There is a subset of C++ templates stable enough over the years, that can be
>> used without fear, uncertainty and doubt.
>
> Absolutely. Can you specify this "usable" subset of C++ templates forma
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Whether we use C or C++, we need to try to ensure that interfaces are
> easy to understand, that the code is reasonably modular, that the
> internal documentation corresponds to the code, that it is possible
> for new developers to write new passes and to fix bugs.
Fully
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> There is a subset of C++ templates stable enough over the years, that can be
> used without fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Absolutely. Can you specify this "usable" subset of C++ templates formally?
That would be valuable advice for maintainers. So that maintainers can deci
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ian> The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
> Ian> containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
> Ian> how to generate
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
>> built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
>> switch during bootstrap, so that any such c
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
>
> "C++ is too complicated!"
>
> with
>
> "Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable."
>
> C++ has, for example, 12
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
Ian> containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
Ian> how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
Ian> used during GC. Thi
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
> built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
> switch during bootstrap, so that any such coding style violation is
> transformed
> into an error
Yes, this can be the
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
>
> "C++ is too complicated!"
>
> with
>
> "Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable."
>
> C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke a fun
> I've thought such a thing would be useful for C style as well.
Right. It just becomes more of an issue if people start using C++
which is a much more complex and large language, but it would also benefit
gcc developers today to have C coding standard checked automatically.
> One slight complica
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> >> How can maintainers ensure this does not happen?
> >
> > What is your suggestion, stay with C? It doesn't have type safe enums
> > either.
>
> One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
> built into the compiler (C++
>> How can maintainers ensure this does not happen?
>
> What is your suggestion, stay with C? It doesn't have type safe enums
> either.
One possibility is to do what we do for Ada: have a style/coding checker
built into the compiler (C++ front-end) as a special switch, and enable this
switch du
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Dear Ian,
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
"C++ is too complicated!"
with
"Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable."
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke
Dear Ian,
A comment regarding the GCC-in-C++ idea. In slide 16 you merely answer
"C++ is too complicated!"
with
"Maintainers will ensure that gcc continues to be maintainable."
C++ has, for example, 12 different ways to represent or invoke a function.
It has no buikt-in typesafe "enum"s. S
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
>>
>> The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
>> containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
>> how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
>> used during GC.
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used during GC. This is not a task for the faint-hearted.
That's one of
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C++. Here are my
pres
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I'll do fortran next, then some top level files. I'll post in this thread
> which ones so we don't overlap. Please do the same.
Okay, I'm starting on the top level files. I'll go backwards through the
alphabet. Doing [t-z]* right now, that's probab
Hi,
Just in case you are interested in it I have a 4.2.1 compiling and built
using C++.
I have not really worked on it for quite a while now.
http://www.gccpp.org
Download at :-
http://www.gccpp.org/download/
Aaron
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like to avoid stomping on each other and duplicating work. Can you
> > tell me what you've already done and/or plan to do?
>
> I have a bunch of patches, but as far as getting them into mainline
Paweł Sikora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's also a http://www.aei.mpg.de/~peekas/tree/ that may be useful
> for modeling abstract trees used in compiler.
Thanks. I want to be clear that the initial goal of the gcc-in-cxx
branch will be to produce code which is quite close to mainline, but
On Thursday 19 of June 2008 19:26:27 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jens-Michael Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
> >> gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
> >> addressed before all the code will comp
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jens-Michael Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
>>> gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
>>> addressed before all the
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, the patch to activate -Wc++-compat is installed on mainline. I'd
> like to clean up some of the new warnings, but it sounds like you've got
> some of this already done behind the scenes. E.g.:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg012
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > These are mechanical and can be fixed with simple casts. Again, IMHO
> > these non-controversial patches should go straight into mainline.
> > Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions.
>
> Yes, I agree.
> Ian
Okay, the patch to
Jens-Michael Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
>> gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
>> addressed before all the code will compile in C++. Most of this work
>> can and will be contributed back t
Am Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 18:20:43 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> > Should the branch compile right now?
>
> No. I've flipped the branch to start compiling the source files in
> gcc with C++. Unfortunately a number of issues will need to be
> addressed before all the code will compile in C++. M
Jens-Michael Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 08:01:35 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
>> just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
>> anybody else may submit patches as
Am Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 08:01:35 schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
> just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
> anybody else may submit patches as well. The branch will follow the
> usual gcc maintainers
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Yes. I'm working around that for now by editing toplev.h, to avoid
>> pushing libcpp and libiberty to C++ right away.
>
> I'm not convinced there's much value in building libiberty as C++ for GCC,
>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Yes. I'm working around that for now by editing toplev.h, to avoid
> pushing libcpp and libiberty to C++ right away.
I'm not convinced there's much value in building libiberty as C++ for GCC,
given that it needs to remain buildable as C for now for
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The reason I'm asking is that a fresh build o gcc-in-cxx dies on my machine
>> with
>> complains that `program' has conflicting declarations: once in
>> libcpp.h as having
>> C++ linkage, once in toplev.h with a C dec
[ Dropping gcc-patches. ]
"Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have not yet committed any patches to the branch--at present it is
>> just a copy of the trunk. I will start committing patches soon, and
>> anybody else may submit patches as well. The branch will follow the
>> usual
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I read through your slides and I'm interested in contributing. I didn't
> see the presentation itself so I don't know if this suggestion is
> redundant. However I believe some work could be done (maybe even on
> mainline) to activate -Wc++-compat du
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
> gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
> better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
> to develop a v
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to
>> (1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks.
>> (2) use of C++ keywords as variable names.
>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to
> (1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks.
> (2) use of C++ keywords as variable names.
> (3) implicit conversion from void* to T* -- but we should have ver
> few of th
First, many thanks to Ian for stepping forward to make this happen.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
>> [...] I believe some work could be done (maybe even on mainline) to
>> activate -Wc++-compat during boots
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> [...] I believe some work could be done (maybe even on mainline) to
> activate -Wc++-compat during bootstrap as a warning only, (not an
> error). E.g.:
>
> #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wc++-compat"
>
> This would help clean up some of the eas
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
> > gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
> > better to avoid possible meta-characte
wwwdocs isn't branched, but there should be a version of
codingconventions.html with the conventions being followed for the use of
C++ on the branch. (Parts of the libstdc++ coding style may be relevant.)
I think a more conservative approach is needed to being buildable with a
range of version
Hi,
On 2008-06-17 23:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
> gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
> better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
> to develop a version of gcc which is comp
[ I dropped gcc-patches from this reply. ]
Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/18/08 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
>> gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
>> better to avoid possible met
On 6/18/08 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C+
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
> gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
> better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
> to develop a v
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C++. Here are my
presentation slides in PDF for
55 matches
Mail list logo
