Re: GTY as attributes

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Taras" == Taras Glek <tglek@mozilla.com> writes:

Taras> typedef struct Name GTY(()) {
Taras> };
Taras> These would parse fine as attributes if they were more like
Taras> typedef struct GTY(()) Name  {
Taras> };
Taras> Would you be willing to accept such a change?

I couldn't approve or reject a patch to do this, but I think the
precise syntax of GTY's does not matter much provided that nothing
regresses -- i.e., gengtype works, the docs are updated, etc.

If you wrote a patch to do this, I would support it.

If you do decided to do this, you might want to get started on your
GCC paperwork early, before the patch is finished.

Taras> Another possible benefit of raising GTYs to attribute status would be
Taras> that other projects could do compile-time reflection similar to what
Taras> GCC does in a semi-formal way.

I don't think we want to expose GTY stuff outside of GCC.

Instead I think other project should use something like dehydra or
gcc-xml or whatever to extract whatever metadata they need.  AIUI the
reason we didn't do this for gengtype is just that we needed to
support building with other compilers.

Tom