This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] [libstdc++/65839] whatis support for xmethods
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Siva Reddy <sivachandra at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:31:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [libstdc++/65839] whatis support for xmethods
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2d22pur6l dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20150428121618 dot GV3618 at redhat dot com> <CADPb22QPe2t4UX1hK5Ob95ZXruHTsth-dMzT_Hx2ceojyEqK8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150429181418 dot GP3618 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 29/04/15 10:57 -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/04/15 15:44 -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PR libstdc++/65839
>>>> * python/libstdcxx/v6/xmethods.py (get_bool_type): New function.
>>>> Replace all lookups of "bool" with this.
>>>> (get_std_size_type): New function. Replace all lookups of
>>>> std::size_t
>>>> with this.
>>>> (ArrayWorkerBase): Rename arg valtype to elem_type for
>>>> consistency,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say ArrayWorkerBase's _valtype is correct and deque and vector are
>>> wrong to use _elemtype.
>>>
>>> C++ containers use value_type for the type of the container objects.
>>> Smart pointers use element_type for the type of the owned object. So
>>> using _valtype for containers and _elemtype for unique_ptr would be
>>> consistent with the C++ library types.
>>
>>
>> Hi.
>> Here's v2.
>> It's assumes the naming cleanup patch has been applied.
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-04/msg00183.html
>>
>> Regression tested on amd64-linux.
>
>
> Looks good, OK for trunk, thanks.
>
> If you want to fix this on the branch too then the renaming patch and
> this one are both OK for the gcc-5-branch as well.
Committed to gcc-5-branch as well.
Thanks.