On 9/3/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > To take full advantage of the conversion to C++, we will need to use
>
> I'm not sure what "full advantage" of single-inheritance vs. composition
> is.
You get automatic pointer-to-base-class conversion with single
i
On 8/31/12, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
GRAMMAR
Support adding a second discriminator. This support is not for
multiple inheritance, but for single inheritance when a second
discriminator is used to further refine it. Look at struct
tree_omp_clause. It contains a sub
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> To take full advantage of the conversion to C++, we will need to use
I'm not sure what "full advantage" of single-inheritance vs. composition is.
> single inheritance in some of our garbage collected structures. To
> that end, we need to
>>> GRAMMAR
>>>
>>> Support adding a second discriminator. This support is not for
>>> multiple inheritance, but for single inheritance when a second
>>> discriminator is used to further refine it. Look at struct
>>> tree_omp_clause. It contains a sub union. We can represent the
>>> hierarchy l
On 8/30/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2012 Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 08/27/2012 11:58 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > > > > I wonder if the second discriminator support is easily
> > > > > generalizable to enabling any derived class being a root
> > > > > class on it own with its o
On 8/30/12, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 11:58 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> I wonder if the second discriminator support is easily generalizable
>>> to enabling any derived class being a root class on it own with its
>>> own subtree? If I understand correctly, the GTY syntax would be
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 11:58 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> > I wonder if the second discriminator support is easily generalizable
>>> > to enabling any derived class being a root class on it own with its
>>> > own subtree? If I understand correct
On 08/27/2012 11:58 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > I wonder if the second discriminator support is easily generalizable
>> > to enabling any derived class being a root class on it own with its
>> > own subtree? If I understand correctly, the GTY syntax would be the
>> > same.
> If I understand corr
On 8/27/12, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> I don't have an opinion from the rest of compiler point of view, but
> gengtype implementation-wise, it certainly looks doable. One minor
> comment below -
>
>> GRAMMAR
>>
>> Support adding a second discriminator. This support is not for
>> multiple inherita
Lawrence -
I don't have an opinion from the rest of compiler point of view, but
gengtype implementation-wise, it certainly looks doable. One minor
comment below -
> GRAMMAR
>
> Support adding a second discriminator. This support is not for
> multiple inheritance, but for single inheritance when
10 matches
Mail list logo
