From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1667 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 12:51:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 1657 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2011 12:51:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-104-thursday.noc.nerim.net (HELO mallaury.nerim.net) (178.132.17.104) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:50:53 +0000 Received: from hector.lesours (ours.starynkevitch.net [213.41.244.95]) by mallaury.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 860C515344F; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from basile18 by hector.lesours with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RGs5E-00040x-2C; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:50:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:07:00 -0000 From: Basile Starynkevitch To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc Message-ID: <20111020125052.GB15333@ours.starynkevitch.net> References: <20111018171201.361304028ab94f102f827bd2@starynkevitch.net> <20111018191350.470cd6b1cd291373d5ff3f2c@starynkevitch.net> <20111019135602.GA19325@ours.starynkevitch.net> <20111020115652.GA14705@ours.starynkevitch.net> <4EA00F94.2030603@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EA00F94.2030603@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 01:09:56PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 10/20/2011 12:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > So, I am trying to add finalized objects in Ggc not for MELT (it does not > > need them, and it already has some finalization tricks which I could use > > when some GCC begins to use C++ objects), but for general use > > For what general use? Surely you're not proposing to add a feature > for which you have no use. Because I don't understand how we can make a realistic & smooth transition from current GCC trunk to a future GCC in C++ without such a feature. Or is the grandiose plan to rewrite entirely GCC in C++ without making that gradual? And also because I still stand convinced that a good garbage collector is useful inside GCC. (the "Resource Acquisition Is Initialization" mantra would probably mean a big lot of copied data and a lot of used memory). Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***