> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > >> +/* GTY((user)) hooks for symtab_node_base (and its subclasses). > > >> + We could use virtual functions for this, but given the presence of > > >> the > > >> + "type" field and the trivial size of the class hierarchy, switches > > >> are > > >> + perhaps simpler and faster. */ > > > > > > Generally I am not really happy about the hand marking - why can't GTY > > > just handle > > > it by itself? Do we have some eisting exmaple of this? > > > > > > GTY was in a way of getting proper class hiearchy for quite a while and > > > this is > > > probably less ugly than C-syntax-classes we have now. But it would be > > > nice to > > > have some longer term plan what to do here. Obviously this is going to > > > make > > > any changes to GGC implementation close to imposible since all the > > > implementation details are exposed now. > > > > As far as I understand, the intent is to move to user markers, see: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00630.html > > OK, I have nothing against explicit user markers. It however seem to need a > bit > of abstraction - just writting by hand whatever gengtype produces seems ugly.
However reading through the thread, I guess we do have agreement on going with user markers, so I do not think it is a reason to hold the patch. Honza
