On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> 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. Ian
