This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gengtype and inheritance
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:06:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: gengtype and inheritance
- References: <CAAiZkiB3=+taq3F0RxgUiHJdu7Prwe5MFHsL_N8Lr5ZUySj96g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51543C66 dot 5080609 at google dot com> <CAFiYyc2vOHLyqSTTBBFiz3rQWU1qSKGqOfSObfPxWPBd_wd9Cw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++
conversion!
Never trust promises from google ... *sigh*
You need to calm down. This childish attitude is insulting and
counterproductive.
The gengtype conversion was part of our plan all along. It's an obvious
continuation of the conversion.
My time is finite and my priorities are dictated by other agents. If I
say that they are plans for now, it's because I have not had time to
work on it. That should not stop anyone, because we have the necessary
base to do this particular implementation.
Now we are in the exact situation I was feared about - people will start
hacking around the C++ gengtype limitations in various ways instead of
doing it properly (because "those plans are just plans").
Anyone can implement the specific aspect of the gengtype plan by using
manual markers (which is exactly what I had in mind).
We already have two classes doing that, in fact. There is no need to
hack around limitations in gengtype. You simply supply manual markers.
The support is already there.
Once all types have switched to GTY((manual)), we remove gengtype.[ch].
Diego.