Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add gcc/make-unique.h

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2022-07-12 at 17:40 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-07-12 4:14 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> > >  So once GCC requires C++14, why would you want to preserve

I look forward to the happy day when we can use C++14 in GCC's
implementation, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

GCC's needs may differ from those of GDB's.  I'm not very familiar with
GDB's insides, but, for example, GCC has its own garbage-collector
which complicates everything to do with memory managements.

Right now I have comments expressing ownership of some pointers, and
e.g. "takes ownership of ...".  It would be wonderful to take some baby
steps into using C++11 to express the ownership directly in code.

> > > 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.

Jonathan's idea sounds good to me.

> > 
> 
> 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?

Pedro, it feels to me like you're constructing a strawman here. 
Neither me nor Jonathan are proposing that.

I just want to be able to comfortably use std::unique_ptr in GCC in the
places for which it makes sense, and being able to use "make_unique" is
a part of that.

Hope this is constructive
Dave