On 16-11-2012 12:13, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Was this considered?
>
> Yup. I just did not implement it. Would be a good follow up, though.
Ah, good to know. Thanks.
For the archives, cause gcc-patches@ bounced my mail for not being subscribed
with this address ("too many recipients") what I had sent was:
On 15-11-2012 21:53, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The only thing I could not do is create proper ctors and dtors for the
> vec class. Since these vectors are stored in unions, we
> have to keep them as PODs (C++03 does not allow non-PODs in unions).
How many cases are there of vecs in unions vs not in unions?
It would seem natural to me to extend the POD vec type with a
class that just adds the ctors and dtors, and call that new type
the "vec" that is used mostly everywhere. The base POD vec (suggest
"struct vec_pod", and then "struct vec : vec_pod {}") would then only
be used in unions, and then only the code that needs to worry about
initializing/releasing the unions would need to care about this. Was
this considered?
--
Pedro Alves
