Re: [gcc-in-cxx] replacing qsort with std::sort

["Pedro Lamarão" <pedro.lamarao@ccppbrasil.org>]

2009/8/12 Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Pedro
> Lamarão<pedro.lamarao@ccppbrasil.org> wrote:
>> I've recently started my contributions to the gcc-in-cxx project, and
>> eventually decided on the qsort suggestion because it seems the
>> easiest one.
>> I've made the change in three places in cp/classes.c; the patch can be
>> found here:
>>
>>   http://code.google.com/p/ccppbrasil/wiki/GccInCxx
>>
>> Is this the way to go?
>
> Please attach patches in the future.


Sorry.
I thought policy on this list was against attachments.


> +#include <algorithm>
> +
>  #include "config.h"
>  #include "system.h"
>
> The includes need to come after config.h and system.h at least.


I agree, but including <algorithm> last causes many "poisoned"
warnings that I don't understand -- using names like "calloc".


>> Also, std::sort requires a "less" function on reference-tovalue-type,
>> so the current foo_cmp functions can't be reused.
>> Would a separate patch to introduce foo_less variants be acceptable
>> for GCC 4.5 right now?
>
> No, I don't see the need for them.


I'll maintain these changes elsewhere, then.
Will GCC ever require support for both a C and a C++ compiler at the same time?
If it is reasonable to assume a C++ compiler things become easier for me.

--
 P.