On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++ conversion! Never trust promises from google ... *sigh*
You need to calm down. This childish attitude is insulting and counterproductive.
The gengtype conversion was part of our plan all along. It's an obvious continuation of the conversion.
My time is finite and my priorities are dictated by other agents. If I say that they are plans for now, it's because I have not had time to work on it. That should not stop anyone, because we have the necessary base to do this particular implementation.
Now we are in the exact situation I was feared about - people will start hacking around the C++ gengtype limitations in various ways instead of doing it properly (because "those plans are just plans").
Anyone can implement the specific aspect of the gengtype plan by using manual markers (which is exactly what I had in mind).
We already have two classes doing that, in fact. There is no need to hack around limitations in gengtype. You simply supply manual markers. The support is already there.
Once all types have switched to GTY((manual)), we remove gengtype.[ch]. Diego.
