Basile Starynkevitch <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:49 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> (2) we should prefer standard solution over home-grown hacks, unless
>> there is a clear demonstration of value. For example, it would be
>> unwise to prefer our current VEC_xxx over std::vector. Conversely,
>> we should probably have our own hash table, since there is none in
>> C++98.
>
> I am not entirely convinced of that. VEC is supported not only by
> infamous vec.h macros (which we surely want to replace by some template,
> possibly std::vec) but also by gengtype (and the Gcc Garbage Collector).
As you say, gengtype includes specific support for VEC. Using
std::vector instead will require some work in gengtype, but not too
much. Currently gengtype generates code like this for a VEC:
size_t l0 = (size_t)(((*x).base).num);
for (i0 = 0; i0 != l0; i0++) {
if ((*x).base.vec[i0].jump_functions != NULL) {
It should be entirely feasible to make it generate std::vector
accessor functions instead.
Ian
