This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: G++ for CygWin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Gerrit P. Haase

> There are always sveral packages at the download mirrors 
> where you fetch the GCC source, one which includes all and 
> several smaller packages.

  I know that already.

> These smaller packages are gcc-core which includes the 
> backend and the C-frontend and the other small packages 
> include the other frontends.

  There is no such thing as a stand-alone backend.  The C-frontend and the
C-backend are inseparably combined in the program called "cc1.exe".

> Cygwin GCC comes in addition to these packages with a pascal frontend.

  There is no such thing as a stand-alone frontend.  The pascal frontend and
the pascal backend are inseparably combined in the program called

  Your use of "frontend" to describe the generic compiler drivers, and
"backend" to describe the actual language-specific compilers themselves is
at odds with the standard usage everywhere on, related mailing
lists, and throughout the gcc documentation.

  I thought I'd explained why I say that clearly enough in my last post, but
I guess it needs clarifying: it is a misuse of existing terminology that
will cause confusion if continued.

> E.g.:
> If you want to install g++ you'll need the package `gcc-g++`, 
> this pulls automatically the backend package which is 
> currently named `gcc' 

  It's *not* a backend.

>(may be changed to `gcc-core') 

  "Core" would be a perfectly good way to describe it.  "Backend" is a
perfectly bad way to describe it.  Ask on the gcc list if you don't trust my
opinion.  They'll tell you the same.  Or just do a websearch on the site and see how the terms are used.  Or even try "info gccint"
on your own cygwin install.  You may feel I'm just being pedantic, but I
think it would be a bad idea to 'overload' these terms for no good reason
when there are better ways to describe what you're referring to.

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]