From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] RAII auto_mpfr and autp_mpz
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:59:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZAez3uJHy/wUTbEw@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4n-ddEW=ugM1d2STRYpKiO0GUEyJYZL59u=QzrTRd+xtg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:54:08PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 21:52, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > > > Shouldn't this use the idiom suggested in ansidecl.h, i.e.
> > > >
> > > > private:
> > > > DISABLE_COPY_AND_ASSIGN (auto_mpfr);
> > >
> > >
> > > Why? A macro like that (or a base class like boost::noncopyable) has
> > > some value in a code base that wants to work for both C++03 and C++11
> > > (or later). But in GCC we know we have C++11 now, so we can just
> > > delete members. I don't see what the macro adds.
> >
> > Evidently it's possible to forget to delete one of the members, as
> > showcased in this very thread.
>
> But easily caught by review.
>
> > The idiom is also slightly easier to read.
>
> That's a matter of opinion, I prefer the idiomatic C++ code to a SHOUTY MACRO.
FWIW, I'd also prefer to see the explicit =deletes rather than having to
go look up what exactly the macro does.
Marek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-07 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-06 10:11 Richard Biener
2023-03-06 10:44 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-03-06 11:01 ` Richard Biener
2023-03-06 11:03 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-03-06 11:10 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-06 11:29 ` Richard Biener
2023-03-07 18:51 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-03-07 19:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-04-02 15:05 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix mpfr and mpz memory leaks Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-02 15:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] go: Fix memory leak in Integer_expression Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-02 15:05 ` [PATCH 2/3] rust: Fix memory leak in compile_{integer,float}_literal Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-02 15:05 ` [PATCH 3/3] Fortran: Fix mpz and mpfr memory leaks Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-03 19:50 ` Harald Anlauf
2023-04-03 19:50 ` Harald Anlauf
2023-04-03 21:42 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-17 19:47 ` ping " Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-04-17 22:18 ` Steve Kargl
2023-05-08 6:00 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2023-03-07 19:15 ` [PATCH] [RFC] RAII auto_mpfr and autp_mpz Alexander Monakov
2023-03-07 21:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-03-07 21:51 ` Alexander Monakov
2023-03-07 21:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-03-07 21:59 ` Marek Polacek [this message]
2023-03-08 7:25 ` Richard Biener
2023-03-08 10:13 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-03-08 10:33 ` Jakub Jelinek
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=ZAez3uJHy/wUTbEw@redhat.com \
--to=polacek@redhat.com \
--cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/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).