Ed Smith-Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 1 Mar 2005 at 8:17, James A. Morrison wrote: > > > Hi, > > I've decided I'm going to try to take the time and cleanup and > > update > > the > > Pascal frontend for gcc and try it get it integrated into the upstream > > source. I'm doing this because I wouldn't like to see GPC work with GCC > > 4+. I don't care at all at supporting GPC on anything less than GCC 4.1 > > so I've started by ripping out as much obviously compatibility code as I > > can and removing any traces of GPC being a separate project. > > My guess is that inclusion of Pascal into gcc would give that language > more exposure and would lead to faster development. > > By many accounts gcc-4 is getting faster. It would be nice to see pascal > take advantage of this rather than being marooned on 3.x. > > I, for one, am more likely to play with a gpascal that bootstraps with > mainline than to try to build one with, perhaps unusual, dependencies > and some different version of gcc. > > I am learning gcc internals slowly (this is a part-time after-work effort :-P) > but I would be interested in helping wherever I can.
Grab the source and see what you can do. > > So far I have only accomplished converting lang-options.h to > > lang.opt. I'm going > > to continue cleaning up the GPC code, then once I am happy with how the code > > looks with respect to the rest of the GCC code, I'm going to get it to > > compile with > > the current version of GCC mainline. I'm starting with the boring > > conflict happy > > whitespace changes first so the code is easier for me to read and so that I > > can > > try to get an idea what the GPC frontend is doing. > > Before we get too far with this I think we should keep an eye on a trend in > gcc > at least through 3.4 and 4.0: Front ends are increasingly written by hand > rather > than with flex and bison. This is true for C++ as of 3.4 and for C as of 4.1. > I'm pretty sure it's true for gfortran too. I think this is true for gcjx > too. > The latter is written in C++ to boot. > > My understandng is that gpc uses flex/bison in a p2c - a pascal to C > translator. > I would like to know why folks think hand written parsers are better. My > guess is that > they are easier to maintain and that they support more lookahead. > > A gpascal front end effort might do well to take a hard look at the new front > ends > for C and C++ (and Java) and consider a rewrite from scratch using these as > models. Feel free to write your own parser, I have no desire to do that. > > My current changes are available through bazaar (an arch implementation) > > which > > people can get with: > > baz register-archive http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~ja2morri/arch > > <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eja2morri/arch> > > baz get [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gcc-pascal--mainline--0.3 > > There is another trend in gcc: a move toward Subversion from CVS. I realize > this > is a first-try effort but there would probably be less regret later if we > adopt > the standard toolchain. The decision to go to Subversion was not taken > lightly. > > Ed Smith-Rowland I don't think it makes a difference. If this little project of mine does start moving I'll put the code in CVS/SVN at that time. Until then, I'm taking an opportunity to play with bazaar. -- Thanks, Jim http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~ja2morri/ http://phython.blogspot.com http://open.nit.ca/wiki/?page=jim
