On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On May 25, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> Diego and I looked long and hard at this issue. It all came down >> to a sequence of problems. First, libstdc++ isn't rigged for GTY, > > If portability to other C++ compilers wasn't a concern, we could extend out > g++ to make supporting GTY better, so that we can simplify and refine the GTY > stuff. I fear we need some light weight reflection, might make a nice > language feature for a future C++ standard, if done well.
Seconded. It points the finger of my #1 concern with the C++ conversion - our GC. We need a GC scheme that allows us to use standard library containers, and the scheme that was outlined earlier would work. Are the TR1 hash table implementations using any non-C++98/03 features? If not then I would suggest to use our TR1 hash tables. Richard.
