On 12/4/20 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:46 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 12/3/20 10:53 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
It looks cleaner if we can use a vec* directly as a range for the C++11
range-based 'for' loop, without needing to indirect fro
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:46 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/3/20 10:53 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > It looks cleaner if we can use a vec* directly as a range for the C++11
> > range-based 'for' loop, without needing to indirect from it, and also works
> > with nul
On 12/3/20 10:53 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> It looks cleaner if we can use a vec* directly as a range for the C++11
> range-based 'for' loop, without needing to indirect from it, and also works
> with null pointers.
>
> The change in cp_parser_late_parsing_default_args is an exam
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:53:22PM -0500, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> It looks cleaner if we can use a vec* directly as a range for the C++11
> range-based 'for' loop, without needing to indirect from it, and also works
> with null pointers.
Nice.
> The change in cp_parser_late_parsing
It looks cleaner if we can use a vec* directly as a range for the C++11
range-based 'for' loop, without needing to indirect from it, and also works
with null pointers.
The change in cp_parser_late_parsing_default_args is an example of how this
can be used to simplify many loops over vec*.
I delib
