🚀 go-pugleaf

I would hasten to disagree with all of your points.

+ I find GCC produces equivilent or better code than the supplied compiler
  on the machines I use (Sequent i386, SPARC, DECstation,.

+ Most of the errors in g++ appear to stem from incorrect implementation
  in the g++ front-end, vague C++ language semantics (``moving target'').
  Since gcc uses the same back-end, the backend tends to be very robust
  and stable.

+ You can not debug cfront-produced C code. That's a major reason for
  using a real compiler (or having a way to pass this information through
  your C compiler).

+ Cfront can't do somethings G++ can do, because it must translate to C
  (i.e. it has restrictions on 'inline' functions).

All this said and done, I still think it's useful to have a C backend
to gcc/g++ -- in part, because I want to use g++ on a particular
machine (KSR-1) for which I don't want to build a backend (it's a pain
to debug, and secondary to my immediate goals).