Matthias Klose wrote: > Hi, > > would it be possible for you to have a look at avifile to work around > #392559 by changing the avifile code?
Done. If we add "template" as suggested, the compiler just gets more
confused. But these member templates don't need to be doubly templated;
they are only ever instantiated for the same Key and Value as the
enclosing template. So we can lift them right out and avoid the problem
entirely:
--- avifile-0.7.44.20051021.orig/include/avm_map.h 2004-02-19
11:39:56.000000000 +0000
+++ avifile-0.7.44.20051021/include/avm_map.h 2006-10-22 01:37:30.000000000
+0000
@@ -28,47 +28,48 @@
bool operator()(const Key& k1, const Key& k2) const { return k1==k2; }
};
+template <class Key, class Value> struct _avm_map_pair
+{
+ Key key;
+ Value value;
+ _avm_map_pair() : key(Key()), value(Value()) {}
+ _avm_map_pair(Key k, Value v) : key(k), value(v) {}
+ _avm_map_pair(const _avm_map_pair<Key, Value>& p) : key(p.key),
value(p.value) {}
+};
+
+template <class Key, class Value> struct _avm_map_binary_tree_node
+{
+ _avm_map_pair<Key, Value>* entry;
+ _avm_map_binary_tree_node<Key, Value>* left;
+ Key minval;
+ _avm_map_binary_tree_node<Key, Value>* right;
+ _avm_map_binary_tree_node<Key, Value>* parent;
+ Key maxval;
+ _avm_map_binary_tree_node(_avm_map_binary_tree_node<Key, Value>* ptr=0) :
entry(0), left(0), right(0), parent(ptr), weight(1) {}
+ int weight;
+ void destroy()
+ {
+ if(left)
+ {
+ left->destroy();
+ delete left;
+ }
+ if(right)
+ {
+ right->destroy();
+ delete right;
+ }
+ delete entry;
+ }
+};
+
// do not use this container in time critical context
// search time is between log(N) and N, depending on order of element insertion
template <class Key, class Value, class Compare = less<Key>, class equal =
equal<Key> > class avm_map
{
protected:
- template <class Key1, class Value1> struct pair
- {
- Key1 key;
- Value1 value;
- pair() : key(Key()), value(Value()) {}
- pair(Key1 k, Value1 v) : key(k), value(v) {}
- pair(const pair<Key1, Value1>& p) : key(p.key), value(p.value) {}
- };
- typedef pair<Key, Value> _Tpair;
-
- template <class Key1, class Value1> struct binary_tree_node
- {
- avm_map::pair<Key1, Value1>* entry;
- binary_tree_node<Key1, Value1>* left;
- Key1 minval;
- binary_tree_node<Key1, Value1>* right;
- binary_tree_node<Key1, Value1>* parent;
- Key1 maxval;
- binary_tree_node(binary_tree_node<Key1, Value1>* ptr=0) : entry(0),
left(0), right(0), parent(ptr), weight(1) {}
- int weight;
- void destroy()
- {
- if(left)
- {
- left->destroy();
- delete left;
- }
- if(right)
- {
- right->destroy();
- delete right;
- }
- delete entry;
- }
- };
- typedef binary_tree_node<Key, Value> _Tnode;
+ typedef _avm_map_pair<Key, Value> _Tpair;
+ typedef _avm_map_binary_tree_node<Key, Value> _Tnode;
_Tnode* m_pTree;
Value* m_pDefaultValue;
@@ -190,7 +191,7 @@
template <class Key, class Value, class Compare, class Equal> avm_map<Key,
Value, Compare, Equal>::avm_map()
{
m_pTree=new _Tnode;
- m_pTree->entry = new pair<Key, Value>;
+ m_pTree->entry = new _Tpair;
m_pDefaultValue=&(m_pTree->entry->value);
}
@@ -268,14 +269,14 @@
if(m_sC(ptr->entry->key, key))
{
ptr->left->entry=ptr->entry;
- ptr->right->entry=new pair<Key, Value>(key, value);
+ ptr->right->entry=new _Tpair(key, value);
ptr->entry=0;
update_min_max_weights(ptr);
return &(ptr->right->entry->value);
}
else
{
- ptr->left->entry=new pair<Key, Value>(key, value);
+ ptr->left->entry=new _Tpair(key, value);
ptr->right->entry=ptr->entry;
ptr->entry=0;
update_min_max_weights(ptr);
@@ -305,14 +306,14 @@
if(!ptr->left)
{
ptr->left=new _Tnode(ptr);
- ptr->left->entry=new pair<Key, Value>(key, value);
+ ptr->left->entry=new _Tpair(key, value);
update_min_max_weights(ptr);
return &(ptr->left->entry->value);
}
if(!ptr->right)
{
ptr->right=new _Tnode(ptr);
- ptr->right->entry=new pair<Key, Value>(key, value);
+ ptr->right->entry=new _Tpair(key, value);
update_min_max_weights(ptr);
return &(ptr->right->entry->value);
}
-- END --
I don't know whether the resulting code works though...
> Apparently that the only package in testing failing with the current
> gcc-4.1.
That's because we don't have enough unit tests to find the subtle code
generation bugs.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] shortened to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you've signed my GPG key, please send a signature on and to the new uid.
In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
