Re: throw(), pure and const flags on functions

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,
> Well, I have my warning ready, so lets see if we all understand what
> this is about.  This is first patch I would like to propose adding
> nothrow markers to the rbtrees functions.
> I noticed that there are also two functions that are used internally
> only in .cc file but not marked static.  Why this is so?  I added static
> keyword there.
>   
Unfortunately, you can't do that so easily, because those symbols are
exported and we break the ABI if we just mark those functions as static,
they just disappear from the *.so. If you really want to accomplish
something to the same effect, for now, until we break the ABI, you have
to keep exporting the symbols, thus just invent a tiny wrapper around
each functions, not marked as static, forwarding to the real renamed
function, marked as static and used as such elsewhere in the .cc. I hope
it's clear ;)
> Does the following patch look OK?  If so, i would like to commit it and
> follo9wup with more .cc files.
>   
Makes perfect sense to me. Just wait a bit, say 24h, in case of comments
from the other maintainers, then just go ahead.
> We also need to decide how to handle the attributes.  Are we going to
> use direct __attribute__ ((pure)) or have some kind of ATTRIBUTE_PURE
> define somewhere? And if so, where it should be defined?
>   
I see. Remember to "uglify" always "uglify" in the library, thus it
would be _ATTRIBUTE_PURE, or something like that, with an underscore at
the beginning. Indeed, we have a place for those things,
include/bits/c++config, should be ok.

... and, remember to be very careful with the testsuite, your first
draft does *not* pass it, because of the ABI thing ;)

Paolo.