Re: [4/8] Add bit_field_mode_iterator

[Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>]

Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
> On 11/15/2012 04:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> "next" was supposed to be "find and return another mode" rather than "++".
>> Did you think it was confusing because "next" sounded too much like
>> the latter?
>
> I wasn't keen on "next" being find-and-return, though I didn't
> actually find it confusing.  And perhaps rather than bikeshed
> this too much now, we should table this for revision in 4.9...
>
>> I hadn't thought about an operator bool terminator.  I agree that's
>> probably simpler, but do any libstdc++ classes have the same thing?
>> It doesn't feel any more standard than the "while (get_more)" idiom to me,
>> but that's probably just my ignorance of C++.
>
> ... when we can attack all the iterators.
>
> No, you're right that operator bool as a terminator isn't standard.
> Though for many purposes it seems better than the "!= fake_end_object"
> semantics that we'd have to use otherwise.
>
> That's a discussion that we should have generally as we find our 
> feet with C++ in GCC.
>
> Unless Eric has any strong objections, I think this patch is ok.
> And thus the entire patch set, as I havn't seen anything else that
> raises a red flag.

Thanks.  Committed with the changes Eric asked for after retesting
on x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu and mipsisa64-elf.

Richard