Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded

Reply
Thread Tools

GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2012
"BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> "Malcolm McLean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> בתאריך יום רביעי, 22 באוגוסט 2012 20:08:08 UTC+1, מאת Keith Thompson:
>>> lovecreatesbeauty <(E-Mail Removed)> 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++..


Before the transition, gcc consisted of thousands of lines of C.
Translating all that code to a language without very close compatibility
with C would have been a huge task.

As I understand it, much of gcc was already written in the common subset
of C and C++.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2012
Andrew Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 22/08/2012 18:34, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:

[...]
>> . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his
>> related linux project do?

>
> Continue to be the same because, while he is particularly vocal in his
> opinion, he is correct when it comes to a kernel.


I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
kernel.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan Curry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Andrew Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> On 22/08/2012 18:34, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:

>[...]
>>> . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his
>>> related linux project do?

>>
>> Continue to be the same because, while he is particularly vocal in his
>> opinion, he is correct when it comes to a kernel.

>
>I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
>kernel.


I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got ****ed
off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a
replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the
compiler.

--
Alan Curry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nobody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote:

>>I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
>>kernel.

>
> I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got
> ****ed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a
> replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the
> compiler.


His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the
tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it
wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes,
gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable
when written in C++ than in C.

 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
On 08/22/2012 09:07 PM, Nobody wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote:
>
>>> I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
>>> kernel.

>>
>> I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got
>> ****ed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a
>> replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the
>> compiler.

>
> His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the
> tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it
> wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes,
> gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable
> when written in C++ than in C.


His biggest complaints about C++ were about the maintainability of the
code. If his complaints are valid, the implementation using C++ will be
much buggier than the current one using C, in which case both gcc and
g++ will be less suitable when implemented using C++ than when
implemented using C. It's correspondingly important to know whether or
not his complaints are valid. I don't have sufficiently wide experience
to judge the issue.
--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
Les Cargill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 09:07 PM, Nobody wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote:
>>
>>>> I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
>>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got
>>> ****ed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a
>>> replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the
>>> compiler.

>>
>> His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the
>> tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it
>> wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes,
>> gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable
>> when written in C++ than in C.

>
> His biggest complaints about C++ were about the maintainability of the
> code. If his complaints are valid, the implementation using C++ will be
> much buggier than the current one using C, in which case both gcc and
> g++ will be less suitable when implemented using C++ than when
> implemented using C. It's correspondingly important to know whether or
> not his complaints are valid. I don't have sufficiently wide experience
> to judge the issue.
>



There are classes of bugs that C++ can eliminate entirely. And there
are classes of bugs in C++ that are much less fun to debug. This being
said, so long as the bugs are reproducible, it's just money and time.

--
Les Cargill

 
Reply With Quote
 
lovecreatesbeauty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
88888 Dihedral
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Bluemel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
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?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chicken McNuggets
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio C Programming 0 08-26-2012 10:34 AM
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous C Programming 10 08-26-2012 08:04 AM
Cisco VPN client, packets beeing discarded and bypassed seansan Cisco 3 09-24-2006 10:50 AM
discarded iterator.next() at interactive global scope doesn't bump interator?? Bengt Richter Python 2 09-04-2005 12:17 PM
Linker Message: "discarded section" Hartmut Sbosny C++ 2 05-29-2005 12:20 AM



Advertisments