On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:45:58 -0500 Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > > There is no reason to assume or to believe that people who argue for > less GC aren't familiar with GC -- a regrettably not so uncommon > jugemental mistake.
However, I don't often see the people arguing against Ggc talking about the difficulties for GCC newscomers to dive inside GCC and be able to propose code. In particular, I did not understand any coding rules or guidelines, or even hypothetical examples, which, when GCC becomes manually memory managed (and the smart or whatever _ptr-s offered by C++ fall into this), will help them to avoid memory leaks. (and while I agree Ggc is somehow weak, I'm in the minority who believes a garbage collector is needed, and Ggc should be improved or replaced by a better garbage collector, not removed; my GC belief is mostly motivated to help new GCC developers, and because of GCC enormous size). Even more, I saw no patches submitted to trunk to remove Ggc, and I saw no patches submitted to trunk to "improve" core Gcc internal representations (tree-s, gimple-s, gimple_seq-s, edge-s ...) by using C++ language constructs. It even has never been discussed in details. I sincerely have absolutely no idea how smart or whatever kind of _ptr-s in C++ will permit moving gimple-s or tree-s outside of Ggc (to the point that I believe it is not realistically achievable). I'll be delighted to get explanations & "proof-of-concept" style code samples. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
