Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that >> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how >> it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC >> objects, it will need to be modified. > > I'm sure there is a library of GC-managed components in C++.
I'm sure there is too. In gcc we use the same data structures to support both GC and PCH. Switching to a set of C++ objects is likely to be a complex and ultimately unrewarding task. >> I don't know what you mean by your reference to the Cyclone variant of >> C, unless you are trying to say something about gcc's use of garbage >> collection. >> > > Cyclone has many options for memory management. I don't know for sure > if there is a need for GC in GCC at all. I would prefer it if gcc didn't use GC, but it does, and undoing that decision will be a long hard task which may never get done. > Cyclone has a roots not only in C, but also ML. Some techniques like > pattern matching, aggregates, variadic arrays, tuples looks to be more > appropriate here than their C++'s metaprogrammed template analogues. I guess I don't know Cyclone. If you are suggesting that we use Cyclone instead of C++, I think that is a non-starter. We need to use a well-known widely-supported language, and it must be a language which gcc itself supports. Ian
