Re: (known?) Issue with bitmap iterators

[Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Dave
Korn<dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> Also, what do you expect the semantics to be?
>
>  Since we don't expect an iterator to return the same bit twice when
> iterating in any case, the ideal would be that it shouldn't matter what
> happens to bits that the iterator has already passed.
>
>> In particular, are new bits past the current index iterated over, or
>> do you expect to iterate over the bitmap as it existed at the time you
>> started iteration?
>
>  That would be an ecumenical matter!  Err, I mean ... maybe the best solution
> (particularly in terms of preventing future bugs) would be for opening an
> iterator to put the bitmap into a read-only mode that causes bitmap_clear_bit
> or bitmap_set_bit to fail, and that automatically clears when the iterator
> runs off the end?

Heh, that sounds useful.  Keep bitmaps forced readonly during
iterating over them but be able to actually verify it.

Might need some new exit-from-iterating magic though.

Richard.

>
>    cheers,
>      DaveK
>
>