On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > 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
There are a number of languages that would probably be better-suited to programming gcc than C or C++, on technical grounds alone. Modula-3 comes to mind. Cyclone certainly looks like a possibility, and has the advantage that it would probebly be less of a shock to the existing code base. But if it is a requirement for using a language that everyone already knows it, we will forever be doomed to C and its insecure brethren. -- hendrik
