[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: g++ compiler
From: |
Paul Pluzhnikov |
Subject: |
Re: g++ compiler |
Date: |
Sat, 08 Oct 2005 09:30:09 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux) |
Pascal Bourguignon <spam@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov-nsp@charter.net> writes:
>
>> AFAIK it lacks the
>> machinery to print (reconstruct) internal representation back as
>> valid C++. Such reconstructor is entirely non-trivial.
>
> Wrong: gccxml
Gccxml does *not* reconstruct back valid C++.
Further, gccxml FAQ says:
Why are C++ function bodies not dumped in XML?
The original sponsors of the project had no need for function
bodies. ...
> You don't need to enter the entrails of g++.
It depends on what the transformation is.
You most certainly need to enter entrails of g++ if you are to
parse comments and generate new C++ code that depends on what has
been parsed so far (or what will be parsed soon).
> It can be done in one week, with the right tools.
Depends on what "it" is, doesn't it?
> Oops, sorry, gccxml only does the declarations, not the bodies.
> But you don't need it, just use -fdump-tree-original:
>
> g++ -c -fdump-tree-original test-body.c
That doesn't produce valid C++ either.
I'll pay you US$1000 if you can turn the "test-body.c.original" back
into valid C/C++ in a month (for every test in the gcc test suite;
the reconstructed C/C++ must be semantically equivalent to the original).
Cheers,
--
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.