Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:01:51AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Trevor Saunders
>> <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 07:54:13AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org writes:
>> >> > From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > This allows us to set the capacity of the vector when we construct it,
>> >> > and still use a stack buffer when the size is small enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > gcc/ChangeLog:
>> >> >
>> >> > 2017-05-09 Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > * genrecog.c (int_set::int_set): Explicitly construct our
>> >> > auto_vec base class.
>> >> > * vec.h (auto_vec::auto_vec): New constructor.
>> >> > ---
>> >> > gcc/genrecog.c | 8 +++++---
>> >> > gcc/vec.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>> >> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/gcc/genrecog.c b/gcc/genrecog.c
>> >> > index 6a9e610e7a0..b69043f0d02 100644
>> >> > --- a/gcc/genrecog.c
>> >> > +++ b/gcc/genrecog.c
>> >> > @@ -1407,14 +1407,16 @@ struct int_set : public auto_vec <uint64_t, 1>
>> >> > iterator end ();
>> >> > };
>> >> >
>> >> > -int_set::int_set () {}
>> >> > +int_set::int_set () : auto_vec<uint64_t, 1> () {}
>> >> >
>> >> > -int_set::int_set (uint64_t label)
>> >> > +int_set::int_set (uint64_t label) :
>> >> > + auto_vec<uint64_t, 1> ()
>> >> > {
>> >> > safe_push (label);
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > -int_set::int_set (const int_set &other)
>> >> > +int_set::int_set (const int_set &other) :
>> >> > + auto_vec<uint64_t, 1> ()
>> >> > {
>> >> > safe_splice (other);
>> >> > }
>> >>
>> >> Is this part of the patch necessary? Won't the default constructor
>> >> be used anyway?
>> >
>> > Well, without the change to the copy constructor we get this bootstrap
>> > warning.
>> >
>> > /src/gcc/gcc/genrecog.c: In copy constructor ‘int_set::int_set(const
>> > int_set&)’:
>> > /src/gcc/gcc/genrecog.c:1417:1: error: base class ‘class auto_vec<long
>> > unsigned int, 1>’ should be explicitly initialized in the copy
>> > constructor [-Werror=extra]
>> > int_set::int_set (const int_set &other)
>> > ^~~~~~~
>> >
>> >>
>> > So we need to do something about that. I'm not sure the other cases are
>> > necessary, but I was there, and being explicit seemed better than
>> > leaving it implicit.
>>
>> Ah,
>>
>> /* If these initializations are taking place in a copy constructor,
>> the base class should probably be explicitly initialized if
>> there
>> is a user-defined constructor in the base class (other than the
>> default constructor, which will be called anyway). */
>> if (extra_warnings
>> && DECL_COPY_CONSTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
>> && type_has_user_nondefault_constructor (BINFO_TYPE
>> (subobject)))
>> warning_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (current_function_decl),
>> OPT_Wextra, "base class %q#T should be explicitly "
>> "initialized in the copy constructor",
>> BINFO_TYPE (subobject));
>>
>> ok - fine then. Probably could be avoided with
>>
>> auto_vec() = defaulted;
>>
>> (or how you'd write that)
>
> Well, we don't get to use = default in C++98, so we'd have to ifdef, I
> guess it could work since it would fix the warning outside of stage 1,
> but seems pretty gross.
Yeah. OK for the genrecog.c bit.
Thanks,
Richard
