This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdr at acm dot org
- Cc: gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:22:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFC] type safe trees
- Organization: CodeSourcery LLC
- References: <40D994BE.3080208@codesourcery.com> <37466.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1088004869.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
So, we don't want C++, we find C too restrictive in the expressive
power it gives us and we end up inventing a new language we
have to learn?
yes, because C++ is not a perfect match either
If we were going to teach gentype a new language and use it
for anything, I would strongly suggest we teach it a *subset* of
C++ that is simple enought to get it generate the C bits we
want out of it.
I thought about this and doing it in C++ syntax would still require
munging to produce accessor macros and tables of node sizes/class and
other associated stuff. We have created and used little languages in gcc
already, this one's fairly simple.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk