This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 51222

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 00:28:13 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 51222
References: <4F9B4B10.7090409@oracle.com> <4F9B62F0.5090202@redhat.com> <4F9BD0B8.4030005@oracle.com> <4F9CB2C9.3060700@redhat.com> <4F9D6180.4030408@oracle.com> <4F9EC605.2050703@redhat.com> <4F9F2243.7000802@oracle.com>

On 04/30/2012 07:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Thus, my question would be: is something like the below in the right
direction? The alternate possibility I can see, would be basically
redoing a slightly slimmed version of for_each_template_parm specialized
for our needs (a few less conditionals)

I think either approach would be fine; I lean toward the first, but changing the name and adding a flag for clarity. Changing the walking behavior based on fn being null is too subtle.

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFH / Patch] PR 51222
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]