On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Richard Biener a écrit:
>
>> Support for constructing and destructing GC objects will be another
>> story of course.
>
> Just curious. Does supporting this take more than just defining new and
> delete
> operators that call ggc_alloc_*/gg
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:19:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> >Now that we have transitioned to C++, do we still need to use
>> >placebo like XNEW and XNEWVEC in GCC source code proper?
>> >(I am not talking a
Richard Biener a écrit:
> Support for constructing and destructing GC objects will be another
> story of course.
Just curious. Does supporting this take more than just defining new and delete
operators that call ggc_alloc_*/ggc_free in there?
(OK, that and defining the object walking routines
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:19:39PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >Now that we have transitioned to C++, do we still need to use
> >placebo like XNEW and XNEWVEC in GCC source code proper?
> >(I am not talking about uses in liberty.)
> >
> >Note that XNEW in particular do
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Now that we have transitioned to C++, do we still need to use
>placebo like XNEW and XNEWVEC in GCC source code proper?
>(I am not talking about uses in liberty.)
>
>Note that XNEW in particular does not work for types with
>non-default constructors.
>
>We introduce
Hi,
Now that we have transitioned to C++, do we still need to use
placebo like XNEW and XNEWVEC in GCC source code proper?
(I am not talking about uses in liberty.)
Note that XNEW in particular does not work for types with
non-default constructors.
We introduced these macros so that they take ca
