This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
- From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at acm dot org>
- To: "Matt Austern" <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: "Richard Kenner" <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,nick at dsvr dot net
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:53:43 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Using C++ in gcc (was Re: [RFC] type safe trees)
- References: <10406251531.AA10774@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <D940A7BE-C6CF-11D8-ADBF-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com>
- Reply-to: gdr at acm dot org
> If we think that pure C meets our needs, then that's fine. If we
> don't, then we should be looking for an alternative language
> that might serve us better. C++ is one reasonable candidate.
> There are others.
What I would like to use is a language that retains C efficiency,
compatible with both C and C++, that does not *require*
garbage collection, but does support it. I've seen real
improvements in the compiler (as part of the work for Apple)
by allocating things on stack instead of on free store.