Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>]

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.

Well you haven't showed concrete examples of your C++-friendly Ggc
either (your suggested code wasn't valid C++).  Does that mean we
should be sceptical and doubt your suggestion is possible?

Why assume that the current major GCC representation have to remain
the same?  Maybe they will need to be modified.