[PATCH 5/6] make get_domminated_by_region return a auto_vec

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 12:03, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 11:54, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:38:09PM +0200, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > Yes, as we discussed in the review below, vec is not a good model
> > > > because (as you note again above) it's constrained by its legacy
> > > > uses.  The best I think we can do for it is to make it safer to
> > > > use.
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571622.html
> > >
> > > Which is what Trevors patches do by simply disallowing things
> > > that do not work at the moment.
> >
> > I only see
> >   // You probably don't want to copy a vector, so these are deleted to prevent
> >   // unintentional use.  If you really need a copy of the vectors contents you
> >   // can use copy ().
> >   auto_vec(const auto_vec &) = delete;
> >   auto_vec &operator= (const auto_vec &) = delete;
> > on the
> > template<typename T>
> > class auto_vec<T, 0> : public vec<T, va_heap>
> > specialization, but not on the
> > template<typename T, size_t N = 0>
> > class auto_vec : public vec<T, va_heap>
> > template itself.  Shouldn't that one have also the deleted
> > copy ctor/assignment operator and in addition to that maybe deleted
> > move ctor/move assignment operator?
>
> That might have some value as documentation for people reading the
> code, but it's not necessary. If vec has a deleted copy ctor and copy
> assignment then it has no implicitly-defined move ctor and move
> assignment. And the same goes for anything deriving from vec.

Oh sorry, I misread the first snippet.

So yes, it should probably be on both specializations. But deleting
the moves is not necessary.