On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:20:47PM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 21:11:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
> >My point was that it's perfectly possible to write C++ code which uses a GC, not that it was normal or easy.
> 
> No, the point is that it would only with a particular C++ compiler. It's not "C++" code if a C++ compiler can't run it correctly.  That would make it "a vendor-specific language similar to C++" code.

Really? I thought there are conservative GC's out there for C++ (and even C, IIRC). It's not too much different from D's GC, actually. You just override malloc/free in the library (or operator new and operator delete, as the case may be), then have a GC thread scan the runtime stack for roots.

Of course, only a conservative GC is possible, since you don't know what's a real pointer and what's just an integer value that happens to look like a pointer. But it's definitely possible.


T

-- 
Без труда не выловишь и рыбку из пруда.

On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 22:28:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Really? I thought there are conservative GC's out there for C++


http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xjvlpegvhcwioqrjhzsn@forum.dlang.org?page=5#post-mwnwtdnbglcwoneqqoao:40forum.dlang.org

On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:45:24AM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 22:28:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Really? I thought there are conservative GC's out there for C++
> 
> 
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xjvlpegvhcwioqrjhzsn@forum.dlang.org?page=5#post-mwnwtdnbglcwoneqqoao:40forum.dlang.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehm_garbage_collector

The GC doesn't need to be part of the language (though it's nice if it
is).


T

-- 
"Uhh, I'm still not here." -- KD, while "away" on ICQ.

On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 23:53:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:45:24AM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 22:28:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >Really? I thought there are conservative GC's out there for C++
>> 
>> 
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xjvlpegvhcwioqrjhzsn@forum.dlang.org?page=5#post-mwnwtdnbglcwoneqqoao:40forum.dlang.org
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehm_garbage_collector
>
> The GC doesn't need to be part of the language (though it's nice if it
> is).
>
>
> T

And technically since C++11 a GC is part of the language, since there is now an official GC API on the runtime, even though it is optional to provide a real GC in current standard.

On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 23:53:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:45:24AM +0200, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Thursday, 4 July 2013 at 22:28:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >Really? I thought there are conservative GC's out there for C++
>> 
>> 
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xjvlpegvhcwioqrjhzsn@forum.dlang.org?page=5#post-mwnwtdnbglcwoneqqoao:40forum.dlang.org
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boehm_garbage_collector
>
> The GC doesn't need to be part of the language (though it's nice if it
> is).
>
>
> T


A _conservative_ GC doesn't. A _precise_ GC does.

On 4 July 2013 22:03, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
> D, on the other hand, has a GC built into the language itself; it's not an implementation detail.

I'd say built into the runtime, rather than language. And it is an implementation detail on just how the GC tracks, allocates and collects memory. :)

--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 4 July 2013 22:04, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> To put it another way, _any_ conformant D compiler must necessarily have a GC.
>

Not necessarily true, but your application at runtime may leak surplus amounts of memory from hidden allocation calls without a GC. ;)


--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';