On 01.09.2013 22:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/27/2013 03:42 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
+ else // extend current template parameter list
+ // pop the innermost template parms into tparms
Most comments should start with a capital letter and end with a
period.
Will change.
+ for (size_t n = 0, end = TREE_VEC_LENGTH (inner_vec); n <
end; ++n)
+ tparms = chainon (tparms, TREE_VEC_ELT (inner_vec, n));
Doing chainon in a loop has bad algorithmic complexity, as it walks
through the whole tparms list each iteration. Better to build up a
list from inner_vec and then chainon that list as a whole.
Okay.
+template <typename TreePredicate>
+inline tree
+find_type_usage (tree t, TreePredicate pred)
I don't think this needs to be a template, since we know the
predicates take a single tree and return bool.
I didn't know whether to allow for someone passing in a stateful
lambda (or other functor) in future so I avoided the issue by
making the predicate a template type param. If we're happy that
only c-style functions (or stateless lambdas) will be passed then
I'll put it back as 'bool (*) (const_tree)'.
I don't see any diagnostic for the implicit function template
extension; my earlier comment about not controlling it with
-std=c++1y
vs gnu++1y didn't mean it should go away entirely. :)
Maybe we should call it part of c++1z, or just control the diagnostic
with -pedantic.
I must confess I was a bit unclear about how to proceed there. I'll
reinstate the two messages and go with a specific diagnostic if
-pedantic is set in the non-lambda case.
Cheers,
Adam
