Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Teaching the gengtype parser about
>> {struct,class} name : public {struct,class} someothername { ... }
>> as opposed to current
>> {struct,class} name { ... }
>> shouldn't be that hard. And, if the complaint is that we'd need to
>write
>> whole C++ parser for it, then the response could be that we already
>have
>> one C++ parser (and, even have plugin support and/or emit dwarf
>etc.).
>
>It isn't. It's annoying and a duplication of effort.
>
>> So, gengtype could very well use a g++ plugin to emit the stuff it
>needs,
>> or parse DWARF, etc. And, we even could not require everybody
>actually
>> emitting those themselves, we could check some text form of that
>> (gengtype.state?) into the tree, so only people actually changing the
>> compiler would need to run the plugin.
>
>Yes. Lawrence and I thought about moving gengtype inside g++. That
>seemed like a promising approach.
What do you do during stage1? Have a collector that never collects?
Richard.
>> Even if you have some stuff that helps you writing those, still it
>will be a
>> big source of bugs (very hard to debug) and a maintainance nightmare.
>
>Debugging gengtype is much harder. It is magic code that is not
>visible.
>
>
>Diego.
