On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 19:15, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > --- a/gcc/realmpfr.h
> > +++ b/gcc/realmpfr.h
> > @@ -24,6 +24,26 @@
> > #include <mpfr.h>
> > #include <mpc.h>
> >
> > +class auto_mpfr
> > +{
> > +public:
> > + auto_mpfr () { mpfr_init (m_mpfr); }
> > + explicit auto_mpfr (mpfr_prec_t prec) { mpfr_init2 (m_mpfr, prec); }
> > + ~auto_mpfr () { mpfr_clear (m_mpfr); }
> > +
> > + operator mpfr_t& () { return m_mpfr; }
> > +
> > + auto_mpfr (const auto_mpfr &) = delete;
> > + auto_mpfr &operator=(const auto_mpfr &) = delete;
>
> Shouldn't this use the idiom suggested in ansidecl.h, i.e.
>
> private:
> DISABLE_COPY_AND_ASSIGN (auto_mpfr);
Why? A macro like that (or a base class like boost::noncopyable) has
some value in a code base that wants to work for both C++03 and C++11
(or later). But in GCC we know we have C++11 now, so we can just
delete members. I don't see what the macro adds.
