This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc
On 19 October 2011 08:42, Duncan Sands wrote:
> 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.
And LLVM seems to be very popular with newcomers to the code base. My
impression is that noone working with the code is intimidated by
properly-managed object lifetimes and the lack of garbage collection.