This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gengtype needs for C++?
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, basile at starynkevitch dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jeremie dot salvucci at free dot fr, laurynas dot biveinis at gmail dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:39:47 +0200
- Subject: Re: gengtype needs for C++?
- References: <1277760198.29547.41.camel@glinka> <mcrzkye92nj.fsf@google.com> <m37hliwpkk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> 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.
I don't think that's a too bad drawback.
> Also, perhaps we actually need 2 such functions, one for the GC and one
> for PCH. ?I don't remember.
Finally a reason to let PCH die ;)
Richard.
> Tom
>