[pjmlp]

Naturally GCC was originally written in C, given its age, and the original GNU coding standards document.

With time, the GCC developers acknowledged the benefits of using C++ over C, and migrated the code.

GCC requires a C++ compiler to bootstrap since around 2012, and GNU coding standards has been updated to several languages beyond C, time to go up with times.

[uecker]

I think the fallacy of this argument is obvious.

[pjmlp]

Not really, given that GCC no longer compiles with a pure C compiler.

Unless of course, you don't have anything to do, and feel like bootstraping GCC 16, using a compiler chain all the way back to 2012 thereabouts.

[uecker]

The question is whether GCC is a good example of the benefits of C++ for compilers. Considering the code looks to 95% like C code and uses data structures that we originally implemented in C, I don't see this argument.

[jstimpfle]

I told him the same thing multiple times, just open a random code location in GCC, or a recently committed change, and see that it's basically C. But he keeps repeating that ridiculous argument like a broken record.