Re: gengtype and inheritance

[Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:

>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.

Ah well, sorry about that.

>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].

Fine. As long as reviewers resist enhancements to gengtype and push people to rely on manual marking.

Richard.
>
>Diego.