From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114035 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2016 01:28:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 114021 invoked by uid 89); 13 Oct 2016 01:28:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1393, HCc:D*ca X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:28:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4699F7F0A0; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9D1SjrO024241; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:28:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFA 09/22] Remove make_cleanup_restore_current_ui To: Tom Tromey References: <1474949330-4307-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <1474949330-4307-10-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <2f79a489b9090701f15fc04e0017c236@simark.ca> <87y41xd0dt.fsf@tromey.com> <1f5898b8-6be9-48e6-4312-72ec90e7810e@redhat.com> <87insxmbnd.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <2855e2ec-46dc-71b7-9943-8edaebcbef90@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87insxmbnd.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 On 10/12/2016 11:43 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> I _think_ they've all been reviewed now. Please push in > Pedro> the ones that are independent and OK already, and repost the > Pedro> others. > > Ok. I think after all is said and done, there are 5 that can go in and > the rest need something -- either final review on scoped_restore or > unique_ptr. Yeah, sounds right. I was trying get the gdb::unique_ptr in, in order to unblock the cases I suggested you use unique_ptr, but I'm a bit confused on what to do about it now... I _think_ people are generally OK with it. There was some opposition, but I'm not sure anymore whether it still exists. C++11 is now on the table, but maybe a staged approach (enable C++11 while supporting C++03 too for a while, to catch issues) would make sense anyway. But I'd really like to move forward with deciding on _some_ smart pointer to use, in order to unblock further conversion. I'll re-review tomorrow with a fresher head (and give people time to comment on actual implementation details (or just say they mean to), if they want...) > BTW, I'm wondering if you want scoped_restore in its own header. It > didn't occur to me while writing it, but now it seems like a good idea. It does sound like a good idea. Thanks, Pedro Alves