On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 02:33:00PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/14/13 14:14, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > >>I'm just pointed out that of all the stuff you changed, these were the > >>only ones I saw where lifetimes were changed significantly. > > > >I still ask why we need a new type and cannot put this functionality into > >bitmap_head itself. > Given that bitmap is just a *bitmap_head_def aren't we suggesting > the same thing?
I think bitmap_head some_bitmap; is a little funny name wise, but auto_bitmap some_bitmap; is kind of funny too, so I think just having people use bitmap_head is fine if that's what people prefer. Its unfortunate bitmap itself isn't available, but I don't have a plan for dealing with bitmaps allocated in gc memory right now, so I guess they need to stay as they are. Trev > > jeff
