Taras wrote:
I might be the only person out there who likes GTY annotations. The fact
that gengtype has a separate parser is highly inconvenient. Why not use
the GCC C/C++ parser on gengtype? It seems that with some refactoring,
it should be possible to bootstrap just the C++ parser( without
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
Th
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
Th
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
>>> familiar with wha
> "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
Dan> hand-write the walkers once.
Yeah, we could do that for the containers.
GTY markers serve three purposes though: they explain the meanings of
fields (this part
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmmm, does C++0x add some type-reflection? ;)
>
> Yes but I don't see how we can use it in C++03/C++98 code. Compiling
> GCC 4.5 (or 5.0) w
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm, does C++0x add some type-reflection? ;)
Yes but I don't see how we can use it in C++03/C++98 code. Compiling
GCC 4.5 (or 5.0) with only 4.3 will be a pain.
In fact C++0x has changed the definition of auto so you
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
> hand-write the walkers once.
>
> One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
> abstract interface with member functions that
Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just
hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an
abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to
implement in C.
In C++, we can.
This is of course, a larg
> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
>> familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
Daniel> Also - I may regret saying this
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
> familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
Also - I may regret saying this but - doesn't gengtype have a
simplistic C parser in it? How upset is it like
> "Chris" == Chris Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL
Chris> containers to the garbage collector?
I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Jefferson wrote:
>>
>> Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
>> to the garbage collector?
>>
>> One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
>> destructors.
Chris Jefferson wrote:
Could someone point me towards what is necessary to add STL containers
to the garbage collector?
One big problem with garbage collecting in C++ is the need to run
destructors. If the (I believe very reasonable) decision is made to
require that running destructors is not ne
14 matches
Mail list logo
