From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14978 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2012 17:34:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 14803 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2012 17:34:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:34:22 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ei8so68298wgb.8 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:34:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.214.92 with SMTP id b70mr4128594wep.86.1353260060847; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:34:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2.26.182.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm11151260wiz.0.2012.11.18.09.34.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:34:19 -0800 (PST) From: Richard Sandiford To: Richard Henderson Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson ,Eric Botcazou , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rdsandiford@googlemail.com Cc: Eric Botcazou , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [4/8] Add bit_field_mode_iterator References: <87k3u3eybu.fsf@talisman.home> <1899065.5XNjVddQ6H@polaris> <50A2BFAC.8000102@redhat.com> <2901255.5QYvrmz5s1@polaris> <87k3tnvzg6.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> <50A552FC.30706@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50A552FC.30706@redhat.com> (Richard Henderson's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:39:24 -0800") Message-ID: <87lidyx1bd.fsf@talisman.default> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01501.txt.bz2 Richard Henderson 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