This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Convert gimple to a C++ class hierarchy
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:12:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Convert gimple to a C++ class hierarchy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1377793216-22549-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1308301532490 dot 9949 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAAiZkiB-Z7GfDGNuWys+d6JW+ynbtfC_Yc5YHfN9M-to5uABXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130830140253 dot GO21876 at tucnak dot zalov dot cz>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 08:58:43AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Michael Matz <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > And the manual GTY markers are so not maintainable in the long run,
>> > gengtype or something else really needs to be taught to create them
>> > automatically.
>> I thought the principle that was acquired was that gengtype shouldn't
>> be improved to support more than what it does now….
> If it means that we'll need to write and maintain tons of hand written code
> that could otherwise be generated and maintained by a tool for us, that
> principle doesn't look very good.
Back in March 2013, I asked about gengtype support for inheritance.
was the definitive answer that appeared to be the consensus.