Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc

[Duncan Sands <baldrick at free dot fr>]

Hi Gabriel,

> > I also agree with you that GCC architecture is messy, and that scares newscomer a lot.
>
> Yes, but the way we improve it isn't, in my opinion, adding more GC.
> First we would like to remove complexity, and I do not think we should
> start by focusing on storage management until we get a clearer idea
> about lifetime of data structures we manipulate and how they mesh.
> We might find out (as I suspect) that the builtin GC of C (or C++) is
> remarkable at the job, provided we have a design that makes the
> lifetime obvious and take advantage of it.

what you say sounds very sensible to me.  If you look at LLVM, most memory
management is done by using container objects (vectors, maps etc) that
automatically free memory when they go out of scope.  This takes care
of 99% of memory management in a clean and simple way, which is a great
situation to be in.

Ciao, Duncan.