GCC 5 & modularity

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:41:56 + (UTC) "Joseph S. Myers" wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Proposed outcome > [...] > > Current architectural issues > [...] > > Not many people commented on the architectural goals document Diego and I > posted at

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 3/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: * you can name and count the modules of a software Well in a hierarchical system this is not so clear, since modules may exist at different levels of abstraction. For instance in a compiler, at one level of abstraction, the front end is a

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:11:05 -0400 Robert Dewar wrote: > On 3/18/2012 12:56 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > * you can name and count the modules of a software > > Well in a hierarchical system this is not so clear, since modules may > exist at different levels of abstraction. Agreed

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management > policy (and > ref-counting à la GTK, or à la std::shared_ptr is not enough IMHO inside a > compiler > because a compiler has much more complex and circular data struct

GSoC ideas: sc frontend, multi output compilation, constant path swap runtime optimization

I'm sending the email again as my connection seems to be having strange issues and it doesn't look like it got through the first time (hope it doesn't get duplicated). Hello everyone, I'm thinking of applying for GSoC, and I've got three main ideas for gcc based around my project. I've been w

Re: GCC 5 & modularity

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 + Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > >   * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management > > policy (and > > ref-counting à la GTK, or à la std::shared_ptr is not enough IMHO inside a > > comp