On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Teaching the gengtype parser about
> {struct,class} name : public {struct,class} someothername { ... }
> as opposed to current
> {struct,class} name { ... }
> shouldn't be that hard. And, if the complaint is that we'd need to write
> whole C++ parser for it, then the response could be that we already have
> one C++ parser (and, even have plugin support and/or emit dwarf etc.).
It isn't. It's annoying and a duplication of effort.
> So, gengtype could very well use a g++ plugin to emit the stuff it needs,
> or parse DWARF, etc. And, we even could not require everybody actually
> emitting those themselves, we could check some text form of that
> (gengtype.state?) into the tree, so only people actually changing the
> compiler would need to run the plugin.
Yes. Lawrence and I thought about moving gengtype inside g++. That
seemed like a promising approach.
> Even if you have some stuff that helps you writing those, still it will be a
> big source of bugs (very hard to debug) and a maintainance nightmare.
Debugging gengtype is much harder. It is magic code that is not visible.
Diego.
