[Gc] GC and C++0x

Boehm, Hans hans.boehm at hp.com
Mon Mar 31 12:08:31 PST 2008

That's a bit of an oversimplification.  The initial plan was to require implementations to provide a garbage collection option.  Programmers would of course have had the option of not using it.  (The meaning of "require" here would also have been fairly weak, since the standard can't really  impose space bounds on programs.)  This raised a number of concerns, mostly dealing with the interaction of garbage collection, manual memory management, and deallocation of non-memory resources.  As a result it was effectively postponed to TR2.

However, there were also some strongly held views that garbage collection should not be dropped completely from C++0x.  Thus a much weaker proposal is still moving forward.  This does not require implementations to provide a garbage collector, but does disallow some (mis?)uses of the current language, so as to make it possible for a garbage collected implementation to be entirely standard-conforming.  It also provides a small API that can be used to circumvent these restrictions for code that relies on, for example, linked lists based on xored pointers.  The latest version of this proposal is at https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2586.html .


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com
> [mailto:gc-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com] On Behalf Of Christophe Meessen
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:32 AM
> To: gc at napali.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: [Gc] GC and C++0x
> Hello,
> I have just read here
> [https://www.jakevoytko.com/blog/2008/03/31/c0x-features/]
> that the GC has been dropped from the liste of new features
> added to C++0x. If this is true, it would be a very bad news.
> Can anyone confirm and provide some feedback on the rationale
> of such decision ?
> _______________________________________________
> Gc mailing list
> Gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
> https://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/gc/

More information about the Gc mailing list