On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:53:22PM -0500, 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.
Nice. > 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? I'd vote for pushing this now as it's simple enough. > --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c > @@ -29273,7 +29273,7 @@ do_auto_deduction (tree type, tree init, tree > auto_node, > /* We don't recurse here because we can't deduce from a nested > initializer_list. */ > if (CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init)) Can this check go now or do we still need it? > - for (constructor_elt &elt : *CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init)) > + for (constructor_elt &elt : CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init)) > elt.value = resolve_nondeduced_context (elt.value, complain); Marek
