[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] the most useless question on this list about basic c+

From: mobi phil
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] the most useless question on this list about basic c++ extensions
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:21 +0200

> On Saturday 08 May 2010 17:05:32 mobi phil wrote:
>> Hello,
>> the most useless question on this list:
>> did anybody think about adding basic C++ extensions to tcc, eventually
>> trivial form of templates?

> tcc misses at least one thing for C++: exception handling. I plan to implement
> it but I won't start the implementation before mid june so don't be too in a
> hurry. :)

I presume setjmp/longjmp, isn't it? Hm... and unwinding, calling
destructors... indeed.. bit of work :)

> And of course the C++ parsing must be added. As some some rules are
> different than in C (like priority of operators), this might require some
> (maybe minor) refactoring. Also, the calling convention is different so there
> is work to do in the symbols generation as well. That's for what I know, I may
> have forgotten things.

step by step, isn't it?

for from me to define your schedule :), but in my opinion, the
following would be the priority list:

1. class + inheritance
2. template
3. operators
4. exceptions
5. lambda !! :)

I think exceptions are not the the most important things, as they can
be simulated with macros. (well you need sthg like endtry macro after
the exceptions). Based on my experience templates are of higher added
value, than operators. Calling convention: would not work with what is
already there? It is not strictly necessary, at least at the begining
to be binary compatible with libraries, etc. or?

mobi phil

being mobile, but including technology

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]