Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > So IMHO the best thing for a smooth transition would be to add 4.x
> > support as far as we can, with conditionals, so everyone can test it
> > and we can drop earlier backend as soon as (safely) possible.
>
> If you can make such conditionals work, then fine. I'm just
> I also don't recommend trying to keep compatibility before 4.0; working
> with 4.0 would suffice to keep the new GPC developments usable with a GCC
> release and the differences between 4.0 and earlier compilers are
> sufficiently large that the saving from not trying to be compatible with
> e
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> So to make it short, for my own productive work I'm not going to use
> gpc with a backend that hasn't been tested with gpc for at least
> several months. Therefore, I'm not going to do my own frontend work
> on such a version, as I want to be able to t
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> GPC uses backend data structure when possible. I see no reason to
> duplicate backend functionality (Ada front is written in Ada, so they
> _had to_ duplicate a lot of infrastructure). We can hide (and are doing
> that now) most differences in macros.
F
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> > > 3) AFAIU dropping support for multiple backends is considered as a
> > > pre-condition to inclusion of GPC into GCC. GPC release wold be
> > > part of GCC release. People trying GPC snapshots would automatically
> > > get backend snapshot. I am affraid that for Pascal t
> > 3) AFAIU dropping support for multiple backends is considered as a
> > pre-condition to inclusion of GPC into GCC. GPC release wold be
> > part of GCC release. People trying GPC snapshots would automatically
> > get backend snapshot. I am affraid that for Pascal that means
> > 6-8 months extra
> Certainly porting to 4.x will require private tree codes - for example,
> SET_TYPE is no longer handled in the core code as not being used by any
> integrated language, so it will need to become a private Pascal tree code
> and be lowered in the Pascal gimplification code. There may be other
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Speaking of which -- is there any reason FILE_TYPE is still in
tree.def?
I think this is just an over look from people who have not removed it
yet.
I am really talking about myself but there are other people who have
removed
unused tree codes before
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> in general tree codes which are not used in GCC CVS have been
Joseph> removed and those specific to a language have been made
Joseph> language-specific and are lowered to GENERIC tree codes (those
Joseph> in tree.def) in gimplifi
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> Well, I haven't looked closely at the Ada code. Perhaps it's an
> option for gpc, but I'd imagine it would be a significant initial
> effort at least (converting the current code which works rather
> closely with backend data structures).
It would be
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> > 1) With current GPC I can work out a new feature and test it using old
> > backend. Such feature relatively quickly can go out in a development
> > snapshot which is usable by ordinary users (the development snapshot
> > use
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 1) With current GPC I can work out a new feature and test it using old
> backend. Such feature relatively quickly can go out in a development
> snapshot which is usable by ordinary users (the development snapshot
> uses old, tested backend which shields
Some random notes.
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Personally, I'm not necessarily convinced that adding Pascal to
> GCC is a good idea. I like Pascal just fine, but because every new
> language adds to the load on everyone. (In my ideal world, we'd
> have stable enough interfaces that it was easy to main
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> > > If GPC developers are interested in having GPC integrated in GCC 4.1 and
> > > are willing to have it play by the same rules as the rest of GCC - note
> > > that the Ada maintainers made substantial changes to how they contributed
> > > patches t
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Patches need testing - but presumably GPC patches are already tested (and
> bootstrap isn't required for non-C-front-end changes).
>
> Patches need testcases in the testsuite if possible - but GPC already
> seems to have a thorough testsuite, though I don't know if every
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> > If GPC developers are interested in having GPC integrated in GCC 4.1 and
> > are willing to have it play by the same rules as the rest of GCC - note
> > that the Ada maintainers made substantial changes to how they contributed
> > patches to GCC in ord
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 03:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I don't know why I replied to this thread but I did. Well I think we
> should have
> no more on this thread unless it is about technical reasons why GPC
> cannot be
> included, or political (FSF/SC decides it is not a good thing).
GCC sour
On 2005-03-02, at 05:20, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
In fact, I'm somewhat curious what caused folks to jump into the
breach with parsers. From reading the lists it seems to be
maintainability and stomping out corner case problems for the most
part.
Perhaps a parser toolset is emerging that will d
James A. Morrison wrote:
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
James A. Morrison wrote:
> 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.
Nice to hear that you want to work on Pascal. However did you notice
that gpc _is_ changing. In particular, the l
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
On Mar 1, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Hugh? I see the argument that another front-end will exercise more of
the back-end, since
chances are that it will trigger code paths in it which other
languages don't use.
However I can hardly see any Pascal language feature/construct, which
wou
On 2005-03-02, at 03:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Actually I disagree with you GPC is much smaller than Java,
If you have only USCDII in mind yes. But not if you look after any of
the usable, aka
Delfi, implementation of it. You always have to have runtime libraries.
and doing full converage
for a la
On Mar 1, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-03-02, at 03:22, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
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
upstre
On 2005-03-02, at 03:22, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
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 t
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
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James A. Morrison wrote:
>
> > I made this post, with my changes posted, to see if I would get any
> > support.
>
> I'd also suggesting contacting the GCC SC to see what their reaction
> would be.
That's a good point. However, if I do get far eno
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Prof A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) wrote:
> Instead of starting a totally separate project, wouldn't it be better
> to coordinate your efforts with the GPC development team?
Effective coordination will require, for a start, the GPC mailing list to
accept messages from no
E. Weddington wrote:
Personally, I'm not necessarily convinced that adding Pascal to GCC is
a good idea. I like Pascal just fine, but because every new language
adds to the load on everyone. (In my ideal world, we'd have stable
enough interfaces that it was easy to maintain front ends separate
Mark Mitchell wrote:
James A. Morrison wrote:
I made this post, with my changes posted, to see if I would get any
support.
I'd also suggesting contacting the GCC SC to see what their reaction
would be.
Personally, I'm not necessarily convinced that adding Pascal to GCC is
a good idea. I like
James A. Morrison wrote:
I made this post, with my changes posted, to see if I would get any support.
I'd also suggesting contacting the GCC SC to see what their reaction
would be.
Personally, I'm not necessarily convinced that adding Pascal to GCC is a
good idea. I like Pascal just fine, but
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 01, 2005 02:17 PM, James A. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> > sour
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
Oh, and please do not include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the CC, because that
is not a public list so reply-to-all messages bounce.
Gr.
Steven
On Mar 01, 2005 02:17 PM, James A. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Since the GNU Pascal maintainers have publicly stated they
35 matches
Mail list logo
