On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:42:11PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>>>> Diego Novillo writes: > > Diego> Over the last couple of years, there have been some half hearted > attempts > Diego> at suggesting C++ as a new implementation language for GCC. I would > Diego> personally love to see us move to C++, but so far that has not > happened. > C++ is not an issue that Chris can address or should be asked to > address. I will work with the GCC SC and FSF on that issue once the > licensing issue is addressed and we know LLVM is a viable option.
That covers the FSF issue, but the GCC developers have their own say in the question, too. Without going any further into this historically touchy subject, I'd just like to reiterate one point I made earlier: I think that at this time there would be concrete benefits to confining C++ to the optimizers, i.e. preserving the ability to bootstrap without a C++ compiler. That said, I wish it weren't necessary. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
