On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I also notice that all cc1 binaries are dynamically linked against
> libstdc++ - didn't we want to use -static-libstdc++ and link against
> the libstdc++ we bootstrap?
Yes, that is stated in Ian's slides. There are a series of related
configure opti
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I would even imagine that later, one could configure GCC to have only a
> C++ front-end, but no more a C one. That probably would be unusual,
> since many important applications which want to be compiled by GCC (I am
> thinking of the Linux kernel
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo
>>> wrote:
>>>
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide
Diego Novillo writes:
> 4- Should we make the switch during the 4.6 stage 1?
My suggestion: put something in one common file that requires C++, just
to force the use of C++ compilers, but with a comment that says "If you
can't build this file, comment out the following and file a bug report
with
* Joern Rennecke wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:11:03PM CEST:
> Quoting Ralf Wildenhues:
> >* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
> >>
> >> In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
> >> from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
> >>../../gcc/libcpp/../incl
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues :
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
‘char* basename(const char*)’
/usr/i
* Toon Moene wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:36:53PM CEST:
>
> In file included from ../../gcc/libcpp/system.h:341,
> from ../../gcc/libcpp/expr.c:21:
> ../../gcc/libcpp/../include/libiberty.h:106: error: new declaration
> ‘char* basename(const char*)’
> /usr/include/string.h:60
On 06/01/2010 08:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 14:00, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/01/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
After fixing build locally I now have
Are you planning to commit the fixes - I don't mind being a guinea pig in
this - I have been recompiling gcc/
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 14:00, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> After fixing build locally I now have
>
> Are you planning to commit the fixes - I don't mind being a guinea pig in
> this - I have been recompiling gcc/gfortran and rebuilding our weather
> fore
On 06/01/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
After fixing build locally I now have
Are you planning to commit the fixes - I don't mind being a guinea pig
in this - I have been recompiling gcc/gfortran and rebuilding our
weather forecasting code now for a few weeks (almost) daily.
I alre
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
1
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
>> switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
>>
>> 1- Should we switch t
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
> switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
>
> 1- Should we switch to C++?
Yes.
> 2- What is the cost in terms of build time?
I wa
Geert Bosch wrote:
> If we're just going to get some new power tools for our workshop
> and let people have at it, the lessons we'll learn might end up
> being more about what not to do, rather than a show case of their
> effective use.
That's why we're not doing that. Instead, we're going to de
On May 31, 2010, at 14:25, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to use lots of C++ features
> everywhere. We can use the C (almost) subset of C++ if we want to in
> some places. As an example, if the Fortran folks want to use C in the
> Fortran front-end, then -- exc
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> You forgot to mention plugins. In my understanding, any future GCC
> plugin would necessarily be coded in C++ and be compiled by a C++
> compiler. Am I right?
Not necessarily. If we felt it desirable, the interface exposed for
plug-ins could be C, not C++. However,
On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:33 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > OK, I will reformulate my question to you and Diego is: is this what we
> > want,
> > e.g. C++ as THE common implementation language, or just ONE common
> > implementation language (the other being C)?
>
> I
On 05/31/2010 06:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide
whether we switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
questions:
H, when I voted "yes" on the question "Requiring C++ Compiler for
GCC Builds" (that was the subje
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 15:33, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
>> implement all of GCC, including front-ends, back-ends, and common code.
>> Where we currently use C, we wish to
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 15:33, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
> implement all of GCC, including front-ends, back-ends, and common code.
> Where we currently use C, we wish to instead use C++.
That's what I want as well.
Diego.
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> OK, I will reformulate my question to you and Diego is: is this what we want,
> e.g. C++ as THE common implementation language, or just ONE common
> implementation language (the other being C)?
I believe that we want (a subset of) C++ to be the language used to
implement
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see
>> how
>> we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
>> least
>> for the parts that use tree.h. By comp
Am 31.05.2010 20:50, schrieb Mark Mitchell:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see
>> how
>> we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
>> least
>> for the parts that use tree.h. By components, I
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Yes, this is the sort of issues I have in mind. For example, I do not see how
> we can use C++ in tree.h without requiring other front-ends to use C++, at
> least
> for the parts that use tree.h. By components, I meant "for example, is it the
> case that the C++ front-
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>>> By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that
>>> some
>>> components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they
>>> can be
>>> linked with other part written in C?
>>
>> Ideal
Diego Novillo wrote:
>> By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that
>> some
>> components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they
>> can be
>> linked with other part written in C?
>
> Ideally, the former. If we cannot get consensus on that, then I gues
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 13:21, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
>
> When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
> there a thread I missed?
Nevermind! It's a fairly recent threa
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
there a thread I missed?
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 10-05-31 12:50 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that some
>> components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they can
>> be
>> linked with other part written i
On 10-05-31 12:50 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everything, or that some
components may be written only in C++ with sufficient care that they can be
linked with other part written in C?
Ideally, the former. If we cannot get consensus on that, then
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
> switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
>
> 1- Should we switch to C++?
By switch, do you using a C++ compiler to compile everyt
Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide
whether we switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following
questions:
1- Should we switch to C++?
2- What is the cost in terms of build time?
3- What coding guidelines should we use?
4- Should we make the switch dur
32 matches
Mail list logo
