On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:56:24AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> 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? > > Not sure - I thought Trevor wanted to make auto_bitmap a full C++ thing, > not bitmap itself?
My only firm goals are less manual memory management, and moving the bitmap_head bit onto the stack would be really nice. I'd also like to leave bitmaps allocated in gc memory alone for the time being, but those are the only firm goals. I'm currently trying the approach of adding constructors and destructors to bitmap_head, but apparently something is causing them to get invoked even when everybody deals with bitmap_head * which leads to ICEs that I'm investigating now. Trev > > Richard. > > > jeff
