On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 12:03, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 11:54, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:38:09PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > > Yes, as we discussed in the review below, vec is not a good model > > > > because (as you note again above) it's constrained by its legacy > > > > uses. The best I think we can do for it is to make it safer to > > > > use. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571622.html > > > > > > Which is what Trevors patches do by simply disallowing things > > > that do not work at the moment. > > > > I only see > > // You probably don't want to copy a vector, so these are deleted to > > prevent > > // unintentional use. If you really need a copy of the vectors contents > > you > > // can use copy (). > > auto_vec(const auto_vec &) = delete; > > auto_vec &operator= (const auto_vec &) = delete; > > on the > > template<typename T> > > class auto_vec<T, 0> : public vec<T, va_heap> > > specialization, but not on the > > template<typename T, size_t N = 0> > > class auto_vec : public vec<T, va_heap> > > template itself. Shouldn't that one have also the deleted > > copy ctor/assignment operator and in addition to that maybe deleted > > move ctor/move assignment operator? > > That might have some value as documentation for people reading the > code, but it's not necessary. If vec has a deleted copy ctor and copy > assignment then it has no implicitly-defined move ctor and move > assignment. And the same goes for anything deriving from vec.
Oh sorry, I misread the first snippet. So yes, it should probably be on both specializations. But deleting the moves is not necessary.
