On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
But we talked about it and arrived at a suitable solution for the how-to-do GTY with C++ issue. Richard.
