Re: gengtype needs for C++?

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>]

On 06/29/2010 04:16 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Ian>  In Tom's interesting idea, we would write the mark function by hand for
> Ian>  each C++ type that we use GTY with.
>
> I think we should be clear that the need to write a mark function for a
> new type is a drawback of this approach.  Perhaps gengtype could still
> write the functions for ordinary types in GCC, just not (templatized)
> containers.

Yes, gengtype would emit template specializations instead of its own 
mangled function names, and it would just call the same function (e.g. 
gt_mark) instead of using mangled names.  The C++ front-end would pick 
up the correct function.

For templated containers it would be the same, except that you'd have 
overloading instead of full specialization, such as template<typename T> 
mark(std::vector<typename T> v).  gengtype logic can be simplified a 
lot, if we accept that some of the error reporting will be deferred to 
the compiler.

Paolo