This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
I might be the only person out there who likes GTY annotations. The fact that gengtype has a separate parser is highly inconvenient. Why not use the GCC C/C++ parser on gengtype? It seems that with some refactoring, it should be possible to bootstrap just the C++ parser( without memory management or maybe some minimal handwritten stuff).Maybe at some point then we should just stop using gengtype and just hand-write the walkers once.
One of the reasons gengtype exists is because you can't easily have an abstract interface with member functions that you can force people to implement in C.
In C++, we can.
This is of course, a large change, but i'm not sure how much more work
it really is than trying to understand gengtype and rewrite it to
properly parse C++/support STL containers.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:35:41AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:"Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
I think most of the needed changes will be in gengtype. If you aren't
familiar with what this does, read gcc/doc/gty.texi.
Daniel> Also - I may regret saying this but - doesn't gengtype have a Daniel> simplistic C parser in it? How upset is it likely to get on C++ Daniel> input?
Yeah, it does -- see gengtype-parse.c. I haven't done extensive hacking there; I don't really know how upset it will be. I assume it won't work the first time :)
Tom
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |