adding destroyable objects into Ggc

Ian Lance Taylor
Tue Oct 18 17:36:00 GMT 2011

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
<> wrote:
> But [independently of MELT] I don't believe that GCC will be able to return to manual
> memory management. There have been valid reasons (long time ago) to implement Ggc, and as
> far as I understand GCC, I don't see these reasons becoming invalid, on the contrary. I
> don't like much the implementation of Ggc [in particular, I badly dislike the lack of
> support for local variables in it], but I do believe that a five-million line compilers
> (or 8MLOC, depending how you count them) with a community of hundreds of developers badly
> need an automated way to deal with memory.
> Did you notice any recent changes in Gcc which decrease the utility of Ggc?

My hope is that as we move toward compiling gcc in C++, we will be able to use
smart pointer classes for memory with ambiguous lifetimes.


More information about the Gcc mailing list