On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:46 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> 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 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 deliberately didn't format the new overloads for etags since they are > > trivial, but am open to changing that. > > > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Is this OK for trunk now, or should I hold it > > for > > stage 1? > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * vec.h (begin, end): Add overloads for vec*. > > * tree.c (build_constructor_from_vec): Remove *. > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > * decl2.c (clear_consteval_vfns): Remove *. > > * pt.c (do_auto_deduction): Remove *. > > * parser.c (cp_parser_late_parsing_default_args): Change loop > > to use range 'for'. > I'd go forward with it now, it's simple enough and simplifies the code > we end up writing...
Btw, I was disappointed about range-for seeing you cannot express iterating from element 2 or reverse iterating. This means when we try to adopt range-for we'll keep a messy mix of iteration style since range-for cannot express all (or even most) iterations in our code base. :/ Richard. > > jeff >
