On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:16:03 -0500 Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Basile Starynkevitch > <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: > > > However, I don't often see the people arguing against Ggc talking about the > > difficulties > > for GCC newscomers to dive inside GCC and be able to propose code. > > From my experience, the difficulty for newcomer to get into GCC source > code base has less to do with GC than the compiler overall architecture > itself. I believe it would be naively deceptive to make people believe that > the absence of GC is what makes or would make GCC impenetrable to newcomers. I half agree about it. Look at Qt & GTK documentation: both starts about how memory management of their objects should be done. And I have no idea about what the equivalent would be for hypothetical tree-s, gimple-s, edge-s, gimple_seq-s, basic_block-s coded in C++ with some kind of _ptr. I do think that the fact that some other big free software starts by explaining how to manage their memory is significant. I also agree with you that GCC architecture is messy, and that scares newscomer a lot. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
