http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52957
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-14 12:42:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > It is not *technically* hard. Anyone that knows C and a bit of C++ can fix > > hundreds (if you know C++ well and have a some experience with the C++ > > parser, > > There's the problem. I know C++ very well but don't know the front end well > enough to work on it, and don't have time to learn it. My main problem is > that > everything is a void* so I have no idea what I can do with a given tree or > what > type it is, so I just try something, it compiles (because there's no type > checking) so I run it then debug an ICE and continue by trial and error. > That's not productive. The bottleneck is not the bureaucracy for me. Thanks for sharing this. This broadens my perception of the issues contributors have with GCC. That said, it should be possible right now to use a C++ wrapper around tree, and use that in the C++ FE (and require C++ to bootstrap the C++ FE). What do you think about that? > > Indeed, but my point is that moving to C++ does little (in my opinion) to > > fix > > the infrastructure issues in GCC: dejagnu is awful, the wiki is > > unmaintained, > > Why should the wiki be maintained? If people want to add to it they can, why > should there be a maintainer? Well, the wiki is just a minor example, but it is awfully slow, nobody has administrator login (I can access as Daniel Berlin and ban users, but little more), and it is a unsupported version with known security issues.
