Re: [RFC] Using std::unique_ptr and std::make_unique in our code

[David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 11:56 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 2022-07-08 9:46 p.m., David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> > -                                   pending_diagnostic *d,
> > +                                  
> > std::unique_ptr<pending_diagnostic> d,
> 
> I see that you didn't add any typedef for std::unique_ptr<foo> in
> this patch.  It will be
> inevitable that people will start adding them, for conciseness, IME,
> though. 

Perhaps, but right now I prefer to spell out std::unique_ptr<T>, since
I'm not as comfortable with C++11 as I might be.


>  To avoid diverging
> naming styles for such typedefs in the codebase, GDB settled on using
> the "_up" suffix (for Unique Pointer)
> quite early in the C++11 conversion, and we use such typedefs
> pervasively nowadays.  For example, for the type
> above, we'd have:
> 
>   typedef std::unique_ptr<pending_diagnostic> pending_diagnostic_up;
> 
> and then:
> 
>  -                                  pending_diagnostic *d,
>  +                                  pending_diagnostic_up d,
> 
> I would suggest GCC have a similar guideline, before people start
> using foo_ptr,
> bar_unp, quux_p, whatnot diverging styles.

Thanks for the info.  I suspect the gdb community is much more
comfortable with C++ (and C++11) than the gcc community.

The recommendation sounds reasonable for if/when we start adding such
typedefs, but, as I said, for now I think I want to spell out
std::unique_ptr<T> in the few places I'm using it.

Hope this makes sense, and these are just my opinions, of course
Dave


> 
> And it would be nice if GCC followed the same nomenclature style as
> GDB, so we could
> have one single guideline for the whole GNU toolchain, so people
> moving between codebases
> only had to learn one guideline.
> 
> Pedro Alves
>