Hey Geoff,
I've learned that you are the author of gengtype/GTY stuff from #gcc.
Would you consider restructuring GTY markers to be more like GCC
attributes? I'm writing code to generate code to convert GCC trees to
JavaScript objects for my GCC plugin. Clearly this is similar to what
gengtype does. However, I would like to reuse GTY markers without using
the gengtype parser. Since I already use the GCC asts, it would be handy
if GTYs were just gnu attributes.
I think it was also be beneficial to do GTYs as gcc attributes for
consistency instead of having yet another language extension.
So far I've defined GTY as
#define GTY(x) __attribute__((user (#x)))
Which appears to work for most cases except for numerous cases of
typedef struct Name GTY(()) {
};
These would parse fine as attributes if they were more like
typedef struct GTY(()) Name {
};
Would you be willing to accept such a change?
Another possible benefit of raising GTYs to attribute status would be
that other projects could do compile-time reflection similar to what GCC
does in a semi-formal way.
Thanks,
Taras
ps. For more info on my plugin see http://wiki.mozilla.org/Dehydra_GCC
