public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>,
	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add gcc/make-unique.h
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:41:14 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56684bbd-b056-ecd6-f01b-924b838ec3fe@palves.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b692ac64-8461-b0b5-c48e-ae6f02f96c70@palves.net>

On 2022-07-12 7:36 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-07-12 7:22 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, 17:40 Pedro Alves, <pedro@palves.net <mailto:pedro@palves.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 2022-07-12 4:14 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>     >>  So once GCC requires C++14, why would you want to preserve
>>     >> once-backported symbols in a namespace other than std, when you no longer have a reason to?
>>     >> It will just be another unnecessary thing that newcomers at that future time will have
>>     >> to learn.
>>     >
>>     > I also don't see a problem with importing std::make_unique into
>>     > namespace gcc for local use alongside other things in namespace gcc. I
>>     > do consider that idiomatic. It says "the make_unique for gcc code is
>>     > std::make_unique". It means you only need a 'using namespace gcc;' at
>>     > the top of a source file and you get access to everything in namespace
>>     > gcc, even if it is something like std::make_unique that was originally
>>     > defined in a different namespace.
>>     >
>>
>>     If that's the approach, then GCC should import std::unique_ptr, std::move,
>>     std::foo, std::bar into the gcc namespace too, no?  Are you really going
>>     to propose that?
>>
>>
>> No, I don't follow the logic of "if you do it for one thing you must do it for everything". That's a straw man. But I don't really mind how this gets done. Your suggestion is fine.
>>
> 
> It isn't a strawman, Jon.  Maybe there's some miscommunication.  The conversion started (and part of it is
> still quoted above), by thinking about what we'd do once we get to C++14, and my suggestion to optimize
> for that.  When we get to the point when we require C++14, make_unique is no longer different from any other
> symbol in the std namespace, and there will be no reason to treat it differently anymore.  Like, if someone at
> that point proposes to remove the global make_unique or gcc::make_unique, and replace all references with
> std::make_unique, there will be no real ground to object to that, why wouldn't you want it?  This is very
> much like when you removed "gnu::unique_ptr" (not going to miss it) a few months back -- you replaced
> it by "std::unique_ptr"; gnu::unique_ptr wasn't kept just because of history.

Sorry to reply to myself -- but I'm not sure it is clear what I meant above in the last sentence, so let
me try again: 'the "gnu::unique_ptr" wasn't rewritten as an import of std::unique_ptr into the gnu namespace
just because of history.'

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-12 18:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAH6eHdSnGwtScODMveYha1S5WiDo6YsexN_pRqe9n4vq-Pmkig@mail.gmail.com>
2022-07-12  0:25 ` David Malcolm
2022-07-12  0:25   ` [PATCH 2/2] analyzer: use std::unique_ptr for pending_diagnostic/note David Malcolm
2022-07-12  6:48   ` [PATCH 1/2] Add gcc/make-unique.h Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12  8:13     ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-26 20:40     ` [PATCH v3] " David Malcolm
2022-11-02 21:45       ` Jason Merrill
2022-07-12 13:23   ` [PATCH 1/2] " Pedro Alves
2022-07-12 13:45     ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 14:06       ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-12 15:14         ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 16:40           ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-12 18:22             ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 18:36               ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-12 18:41                 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2022-07-12 18:58                   ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 18:59                     ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 18:50                 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-07-12 18:56                   ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-12 18:36             ` David Malcolm
2022-07-12 18:49               ` Pedro Alves
2022-10-21 16:01 David Malcolm
2022-10-25 23:00 ` David Malcolm

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56684bbd-b056-ecd6-f01b-924b838ec3fe@palves.net \
    --to=pedro@palves.net \
    --cc=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).