On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even >> > ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up >> > with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead >> > of helping anyone can only lead to confusion. I don't see anyone >> > committing to invest the time in converting even an entire subsystem let >> > alone the whole compiler. Maybe a subsystem conversion would be a good >> > thing to try on a branch and then present the results to the community >> > for evaluation. This would be better than lowering the barrier now for >> > all sorts of random but uncoordinated conversion efforts. >> >> IMO the killer conversion would be vec.[ch], which is a very clever piece of >> code but is almost impossible to use without copy-and-pasting existing cases. >> I think that a proper C++ implementation would be a very convincing argument. > > 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.
I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and the goal post moving. Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we switch to C++? -- Gaby
