On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Trevor Saunders <tsaund...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:56:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 11/14/13 14:14, Richard Biener wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm just pointed out that of all the stuff you changed, these were the >> >>> only ones I saw where lifetimes were changed significantly. >> >> >> >> >> >> I still ask why we need a new type and cannot put this functionality into >> >> bitmap_head itself. >> > >> > Given that bitmap is just a *bitmap_head_def aren't we suggesting the same >> > thing? >> >> Not sure - I thought Trevor wanted to make auto_bitmap a full C++ thing, >> not bitmap itself? > > My only firm goals are less manual memory management, and moving the > bitmap_head bit onto the stack would be really nice. I'd also like to > leave bitmaps allocated in gc memory alone for the time being, but those > are the only firm goals. I'm currently trying the approach of adding > constructors and destructors to bitmap_head, but apparently something is > causing them to get invoked even when everybody deals with bitmap_head * > which leads to ICEs that I'm investigating now.
They are used embedded into other structures as well (to avoid a pointer indirection). Richard. > Trev > >> >> Richard. >> >> > jeff
