This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-in-cxx branch created
- From: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi dot pooq dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:30:30 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: gcc-in-cxx branch created
- References: <m363s746yo.fsf@google.com> <200806191747.10317.jensmh@gmx.de> <m3lk11v1k4.fsf@google.com> <200806191831.30372.jensmh@gmx.de> <m3d4mduyik.fsf@google.com> <g3ircr$d5d$1@ger.gmane.org> <m37iciplll.fsf@google.com> <g3s99g$oc0$1@ger.gmane.org> <m38wwsvqir.fsf@google.com>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:11:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ivan Levashew <I.Levashew@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>>> Your comment makes little sense in context. Nobody could claim that
>>> the existing gengtype code is simple. Not many people understand how
>>> it works at all. In order to support STL containers holding GC
>>> objects, it will need to be modified.
>>
>> I'm sure there is a library of GC-managed components in C++.
>
> I'm sure there is too. In gcc we use the same data structures to
> support both GC and PCH. Switching to a set of C++ objects is likely to
> be a complex and ultimately unrewarding task.
>
>
>>> I don't know what you mean by your reference to the Cyclone variant of
>>> C, unless you are trying to say something about gcc's use of garbage
>>> collection.
>>>
>>>
>> Cyclone has many options for memory management. I don't know for sure
>> if there is a need for GC in GCC at all.
>
> I would prefer it if gcc didn't use GC, but it does, and undoing that
> decision will be a long hard task which may never get done.
>
>> Cyclone has a roots not only in C, but also ML. Some techniques like
>> pattern matching, aggregates, variadic arrays, tuples looks to be more
>> appropriate here than their C++'s metaprogrammed template analogues.
>
> I guess I don't know Cyclone. If you are suggesting that we use Cyclone
> instead of C++, I think that is a non-starter. We need to use a
> well-known widely-supported language, and it must be a language which
> gcc itself supports.
>
> Ian
There are a number of languages that would probably be better-suited to
programming gcc than C or C++, on technical grounds alone. Modula-3
comes to mind. Cyclone certainly looks like a possibility, and has the
advantage that it would probebly be less of a shock to the existing code
base. But if it is a requirement for using a language that everyone
already knows it, we will forever be doomed to C and its insecure
brethren.
-- hendrik