Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 192 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200
[OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-23 08:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:41 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:42 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 18:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:21 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-03 16:55 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:05 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:56 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:10 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 07:51 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 17:43 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-23 20:17 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 15:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 17:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 19:02 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 20:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:33 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 08:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:08 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:37 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:13 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-23 10:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-23 13:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 09:06 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:45 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:01 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:11 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 11:46 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 12:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 09:35 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:28 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 14:23 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:02 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-25 17:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 18:49 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:23 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 09:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 13:35 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 02:10 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:59 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:21 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:01 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-27 23:16 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 17:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 03:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:07 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:40 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 00:59 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> - 2012-09-03 00:31 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 09:13 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 15:38 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 18:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 17:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2012-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Subject | GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded |
| Message-ID | <5ae847c6-461f-4243-86bb-5712b158b022@googlegroups.com> |
Hello! Wise people! Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) But still not very clear on it. . does it mean C++ is better than C? . the re-implemention involves which one(s): C compiler, C++ compiler, and Java, Fortran ..? . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his related linux project do? -vvvv- This page is meant to eventually help document the ongoing effort in the "gcc-in-cxx" branch to make gcc compile in C++ mode, i.e. as C++ source code. So, the goal of this branch is to facilitate switching GCC's implementation language to C++. -^^^^- [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k1365i$f15$1@news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> |
| In reply to | #24707 |
Am 22.08.2012 19:34, schrieb lovecreatesbeauty: > Hello! Wise people! > > > Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) > > But still not very clear on it. > > . does it mean C++ is better than C? It means "use the right tool for the right job." What is "better" depends on your metric. In my experience, designing large and complicated projects in C alone is harder than to do it in C++ where you have better ability to check for correctness of your constructions, and a more expressive language to get the job done. If your goal is to develop lean software on smaller systems, C is the better choice as its overhead is smaller and its usually better supported on processors off the mainstream. > . the re-implemention involves which one(s): C compiler, C++ compiler, and Java, Fortran ..? I don't know. Probably all of them one after another. Note that gcc has a common code generator that will, likely, be in C++ for all those cases. > . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his related linux project do? Who the fuck cares? Linux requires a lot of arcane magic as far as the linkage and loading process is concerned, and critically depends on some of the internals how that goes for the gcc. It would be harder to keep this magic working for C++. Greetings, Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fd2cee5-e45d-4b0c-bc7e-10a9eaf093a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24707 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:34:37 PM UTC+2, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: > Hello! Wise people! > > Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) > > But still not very clear on it. > It just means that gcc will be entirely written in C++ instead of C. Is it a good move? Ask the gcc developers! More on, one can think that it will be harder to build gcc (as it's easier to find C compilers than C++ compilers on different architectures), but to build gcc you need another gcc anyway, cross-compiling it on a different machine if needed. So, IMHO, nothing to see here. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50352358.9080408@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #24707 |
On 08/22/2012 01:34 PM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: > Hello! Wise people! > > > Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) > > But still not very clear on it. > > . does it mean C++ is better than C? No, it means the developers of gcc think it's a better language for that application. They might have a different opinion for other kinds of applications. Their opinion might or might not be correct. > . the re-implemention involves which one(s): C compiler, C++ compiler, and Java, Fortran ..? gcc is the Gnu Compiler Collection; that implies to me that the correct answer is likely to be "all of the above (and others too)". > . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his related linux project do? He'll probably say that gcc has made a horrible mistake. He might or might not be correct. Keep in mind that people who go to extremes in support or opposition to a given language are seldom reliable judges of such issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk3aa1k.d3m.angel+news@pearlgates.net> |
| In reply to | #24711 |
On 2012-08-22, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > On 08/22/2012 01:34 PM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: >> Hello! Wise people! >> >> >> Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C >> will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) >> >> But still not very clear on it. >> >> . does it mean C++ is better than C? > > No, it means the developers of gcc think it's a better language for that > application. They might have a different opinion for other kinds of > applications. Their opinion might or might not be correct. > >> . the re-implemention involves which one(s): C compiler, C++ compiler, >> and Java, Fortran ..? > > gcc is the Gnu Compiler Collection; that implies to me that the correct > answer is likely to be "all of the above (and others too)". > >> . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his related >> linux project do? > > He'll probably say that gcc has made a horrible mistake. He might or > might not be correct. Keep in mind that people who go to extremes in > support or opposition to a given language are seldom reliable judges of > such issues. Nice diplomatic answer. I fear it will be wasted on the thread starter though, this guy is so obviously trolling it's not even funny. -- "C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself. C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette." - seen in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln628aiw2v.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24707 |
lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
> Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and
> C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : )
[...]
As far as I know, the only thing changing is the implementation
language. It has nothing to do with the languages that gcc
can compile, and there is no indication of C being discarded or
deprecated other than as the implementation language for gcc itself.
I have no comment on whether this is a good idea, but it's not what
you're implying it is.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d65cee92-f2b1-4ec1-a642-0b44ed84f7b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24716 |
בתאריך יום רביעי, 22 באוגוסט 2012 20:08:08 UTC+1, מאת Keith Thompson: > lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes: > > I have no comment on whether this is a good idea, but it's not what > you're implying it is. > > When any major program moves from C to another language it's something of a disappointment to regs of this newgroup. Particularly when it's the compiler in which a lot of C programs themselves are compiled. But it's an outlier. The general trend is that C++ use is down, C use is holding up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k13cu1$ff6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24718 |
"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:d65cee92-f2b1-4ec1-a642-0b44ed84f7b7@googlegroups.com... > בתאריך יום רביעי, 22 באוגוסט 2012 20:08:08 UTC+1, מאת Keith Thompson: >> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes: >> >> I have no comment on whether this is a good idea, but it's not what >> you're implying it is. >> >> > When any major program moves from C to another language it's something of > a > disappointment to regs of this newgroup. Particularly when it's the > compiler > in which a lot of C programs themselves are compiled. > But it's an outlier. The general trend is that C++ use is down, C use is > holding up. It's no surprise that there might be better languages for implementing compilers with than C. Especially with much faster hardware now that allows more productive languages to be used. But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Q9bZr.201616$GZ3.111542@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #24719 |
On 22/08/2012 21:45, BartC wrote: [..] > > It's no surprise that there might be better languages for implementing > compilers with than C. Especially with much faster hardware now that > allows more productive languages to be used. > > But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. > Don't forget that GCC itself is a set of programs that need to run "reasonably fast". It would take very long to compile the QT libraries if GCC was implemented in any scripting language. C++ seems to offer the best compromise between abstractions and performance. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k14tvn$7up$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24720 |
On 22/08/2012 21:20, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > On 22/08/2012 21:45, BartC wrote: > > [..] >> >> It's no surprise that there might be better languages for implementing >> compilers with than C. Especially with much faster hardware now that >> allows more productive languages to be used. >> >> But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. >> > > Don't forget that GCC itself is a set of programs that need to run > "reasonably fast". It would take very long to compile the QT libraries > if GCC was implemented in any scripting language. C++ seems to offer > the best compromise between abstractions and performance. > I don't know. There are plenty of fast languages that are not C or C++. Haskell strikes me as an interesting language that is both "fast enough" and extremely expressive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k15vei$vqr$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #24745 |
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:21 +0100 Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote: > On 22/08/2012 21:20, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > > On 22/08/2012 21:45, BartC wrote: > > > > [..] > >> > >> It's no surprise that there might be better languages for > >> implementing compilers with than C. Especially with much faster > >> hardware now that allows more productive languages to be used. > >> > >> But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. > >> > > > > Don't forget that GCC itself is a set of programs that need to run > > "reasonably fast". It would take very long to compile the QT > > libraries if GCC was implemented in any scripting language. C++ > > seems to offer the best compromise between abstractions and > > performance. > > > > I don't know. There are plenty of fast languages that are not C or > C++. Haskell strikes me as an interesting language that is both "fast > enough" and extremely expressive. Haskell fast? Well, it provides C strings and such but language is inherently *slow*. Java is much faster than Haskell for example... -- drwxr-xr-x 2 bmaxa bmaxa 4096 Aug 22 11:59 .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded |
| Message-ID | <p9gig9-5n8.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #24776 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:21 +0100 > Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote: <snip> > > I don't know. There are plenty of fast languages that are not C or > > C++. Haskell strikes me as an interesting language that is both "fast > > enough" and extremely expressive. > Haskell fast? Well, it provides C strings and such but language > is inherently *slow*. > Java is much faster than Haskell for example... Actually, Haskell competes quite well with Java on the Programming Language Shootout. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all GHC can compile either to native code, or to C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded |
| Message-ID | <k164bp$vqr$9@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #24791 |
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:27:05 -0700 William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:21 +0100 > > Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote: > <snip> > > > I don't know. There are plenty of fast languages that are not C or > > > C++. Haskell strikes me as an interesting language that is both > > > "fast enough" and extremely expressive. > > > Haskell fast? Well, it provides C strings and such but language > > is inherently *slow*. > > Java is much faster than Haskell for example... > > Actually, Haskell competes quite well with Java on the Programming > Language Shootout. > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all > > GHC can compile either to native code, or to C. > Well, those are just small benchmarks tweaked to perfection. I have tried Haskell some years ago and found it much more difficult than C++ to master and write satisfying applications in time. You have to be real guru to write satisfying Haskell code. I mean idea that everything is constant is good in theory but in practice you have to dig in "non safe" code and to write against functional spirit in order to finish job, and for that task Haskell is too complicated IMO. -- drwx------ 2 bmaxa bmaxa 4096 Aug 23 22:33 .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <smsfg9-c1m.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #24719 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > "Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:d65cee92-f2b1-4ec1-a642-0b44ed84f7b7@googlegroups.com... > > בתאריך יום רביעי, 22 באוגוסט 2012 20:08:08 UTC+1, מאת Keith Thompson: > >> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> I have no comment on whether this is a good idea, but it's not what > >> you're implying it is. > >> > >> > > When any major program moves from C to another language it's something of > > a > > disappointment to regs of this newgroup. Particularly when it's the > > compiler > > in which a lot of C programs themselves are compiled. > > But it's an outlier. The general trend is that C++ use is down, C use is > > holding up. > > It's no surprise that there might be better languages for implementing > compilers with than C. Especially with much faster hardware now that allows > more productive languages to be used. > > But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. People appear to be presuming that there's a single entity, "GCC", and it decided that C++ is superior to C for its task. This just isn't the case. The collective decision to move to C++ was long and politely contentious (and not really news if you've been following things). A large number, perhaps even a majority, were happy sticking with C. But there was some number of contributors who strongly agitated to move to C++, and keeping those contributors happy was apparently enough justitication to make the move. One of the biggest arguments for sticking with C was that more people were proficient in C. However, major software vendors involved in the FOSS community, including Google, have come to favor C++ for myriad reasons, most not having anything to do with merit. People like using languages in a FOSS project that they regularly use elsewhere. Given the shift in the communities that foster GCC development, it was only a matter of time that C++ would come into the fore. The question is, how long will this last? Like almost everything in life, the most prominent answer for "why C++" is path dependence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a3f2afb-6230-4cea-87fa-af8bde1edc77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24721 |
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:40:28 PM UTC, William Ahern wrote: > > This just isn't the case. The collective decision to move to C++ was long > > and politely contentious (and not really news if you've been following > > things). A large number, perhaps even a majority, were happy sticking with > > C. But there was some number of contributors who strongly agitated to move > > to C++, and keeping those contributors happy was apparently enough > > justitication to make the move. > > > > One of the biggest arguments for sticking with C was that more people were > > proficient in C. However, major software vendors involved in the FOSS > > community, including Google, have come to favor C++ for myriad reasons, most > > not having anything to do with merit. > Will there be two sets of implemention of GCC, one in C and another in C++. It's a change to switch back to C in case the latter one f_cked up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd3b5643-b48c-4fb3-976c-ca917971e968@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24740 |
lovecreatesbeauty於 2012年8月23日星期四UTC+8下午3時15分39秒寫道： > On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:40:28 PM UTC, William Ahern wrote: > > > > > > This just isn't the case. The collective decision to move to C++ was long > > > > > > and politely contentious (and not really news if you've been following > > > > > > things). A large number, perhaps even a majority, were happy sticking with > > > > > > C. But there was some number of contributors who strongly agitated to move > > > > > > to C++, and keeping those contributors happy was apparently enough > > > > > > justitication to make the move. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the biggest arguments for sticking with C was that more people were > > > > > > proficient in C. However, major software vendors involved in the FOSS > > > > > > community, including Google, have come to favor C++ for myriad reasons, most > > > > > > not having anything to do with merit. > > > > > > Will there be two sets of implemention of GCC, one in C and another in C++. > > > > It's a change to switch back to C in case the latter one f_cked up. C++ is good for those not interested in the hardware platform. The auto-sizable vector container reminds me the array in basica. It is also good for LISP users to get what they wanted and cried long time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k14qop$k06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24740 |
On 23/08/2012 08:15, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: > Will there be two sets of implemention of GCC, one in C and another in C++. Why don't you ask on one of the GCC mailing lists rather than a general C forum?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0ha38pn6c5pf2p0149pm5142o55q0dbs6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24719 |
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:45:19 +0100, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > >"Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message >news:d65cee92-f2b1-4ec1-a642-0b44ed84f7b7@googlegroups.com... >> ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ??????? 2012 20:08:08 UTC+1, ??? Keith Thompson: >>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> I have no comment on whether this is a good idea, but it's not what >>> you're implying it is. >>> >>> >> When any major program moves from C to another language it's something of >> a >> disappointment to regs of this newgroup. Particularly when it's the >> compiler >> in which a lot of C programs themselves are compiled. >> But it's an outlier. The general trend is that C++ use is down, C use is >> holding up. > >It's no surprise that there might be better languages for implementing >compilers with than C. Especially with much faster hardware now that allows >more productive languages to be used. > >But I wouldn't have chosen C++.. Well they're obviously *not* going to rewrite GCC from scratch. The plan, as I understand it, is to first make the codebase (or much of it) C++ clean (as with many C programs, that should not be a horrible undertaking), and then work from there. Given the scope of what a complete GCC rewrite would entail, almost* any other language choice would be doomed from the start. If I were writing a compiler from scratch (and that's something I've done several times over the years), the technical merits of the language are obviously a significant consideration, but the practical realities of availability, tool chains and programmers loom just as large. So while my first choice for implementing a compiler would likely be something like Haskell, it just isn't usually an option in the real world. Like it or not, the added abstractions possible in C++ are quite handy for many of the manipulations needed in a compiler, so C++ is likely the best option in most cases. At this point the number of platforms you're likely to run a compiler on that *don't* have a well supported C++ compiler is quite small, so the greater availability of C is a pretty limited benefit. Of course if you can limit your platforms enough, there are other options to consider. For example, if you were targeting MS platforms only, C# is pretty attractive. *Objective C would have a similar high level of C compatibility as C++, for example, but I think you'd be hard pressed to consider that as sufficiently mainstream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k14ube$7up$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24722 |
On 22/08/2012 21:56, Robert Wessel wrote: > > *Objective C would have a similar high level of C compatibility as > C++, for example, but I think you'd be hard pressed to consider that > as sufficiently mainstream. > I'm not so sure. Objective-C is growing in popularity all the time. It has the advantage that any valid C program is a valid Objective-C program and can also use C++ classes directly via Objective-C++. Sounds like a win / win situation to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7pbc389bjejrpa0ksqj8jc9g69buu0qg2e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24746 |
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:49:35 +0100, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote: >On 22/08/2012 21:56, Robert Wessel wrote: > >> >> *Objective C would have a similar high level of C compatibility as >> C++, for example, but I think you'd be hard pressed to consider that >> as sufficiently mainstream. >> > >I'm not so sure. Objective-C is growing in popularity all the time. It >has the advantage that any valid C program is a valid Objective-C >program and can also use C++ classes directly via Objective-C++. Sounds >like a win / win situation to me. Outside the Apple world, the use of Objective-C relative to C++ appears to be miniscule, bordering on the non-existent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web