Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc

[Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 October 2011 12:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>> (amongst those advocating C++ smart or whatever _ptr-s)
>
> Please stop saying "smart or whatever _ptr-s" - the term "smart
> pointer" has a commonly accepted meaning and is well understood.  It's
> a generic term, it doesn't refer to a particular smart_ptr class.
>
> Your repeated use of that phrasing is as silly as referring to MELT as
> a "gcc plug or whatever in"
>
>
>
>> explained how he believes the current GCC GTY-ed representations (like tree,
>> gimple, gimple_seq, edge, loop-s...) could be re-implemented in C++ using
>> C++ tricks without Ggc, and what could be the transition from the current
>> state of GCC to such a future state (C++--full, but Ggc-less) of GCC.
>
> The fact noone has done it yet, or explained it in detail, doesn't
> mean it can't happen.
>
>
>> I might be grossly wrong, but nobody explained -with concrete examples- us
>> how the current major GCC representations could be done inside GCC with C++
>> but without Ggc. For instance, nobody explained what an hypothetical class
>> Gimple or class Gimple_Seq could be.

But we talked about it and arrived at a suitable solution for the how-to-do
GTY with C++ issue.

Richard.