Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Dave
> Korn<dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> Also, what do you expect the semantics to be?
>> Since we don't expect an iterator to return the same bit twice when
>> iterating in any case, the ideal would be that it shouldn't matter what
>> happens to bits that the iterator has already passed.
>>
>>> In particular, are new bits past the current index iterated over, or
>>> do you expect to iterate over the bitmap as it existed at the time you
>>> started iteration?
>> That would be an ecumenical matter! Err, I mean ... maybe the best solution
>> (particularly in terms of preventing future bugs) would be for opening an
>> iterator to put the bitmap into a read-only mode that causes bitmap_clear_bit
>> or bitmap_set_bit to fail, and that automatically clears when the iterator
>> runs off the end?
>
> Heh, that sounds useful. Keep bitmaps forced readonly during
> iterating over them but be able to actually verify it.
>
> Might need some new exit-from-iterating magic though.
I took a look. I don't think it would be hideously hacky to do something
like ...
#define EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP(BITMAP, MIN, BITNUM, ITER) \
for ((BITMAP)->ro_flag = true, \
bmp_iter_set_init (&(ITER), (BITMAP), (MIN), &(BITNUM)); \
(BITMAP)->ro_flag = bmp_iter_set (&(ITER), &(BITNUM)); \
bmp_iter_next (&(ITER), &(BITNUM)))
cheers,
DaveK
