On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2012 01:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> >> I have found that tree-flow.h implements iteration over htab_t, >> while there is no current facility to do that with hash_table. >> Unfortunately, the specific form does not match the standard C++ >> approach to iterators. We have several choices. >> >> (1) Ignore the problem and leave all such tables as htab_t. >> >> (2) Write new hash_table iteration functions to match the form of >> the existing GCC macro/function approach. >> >> (3) Write new hash_table iteration functions to match the form used >> by the C++ standard. This approach would entail modifying the loops. >> >> Diego and I have a preference for (3). What do you prefer? > > > I don't like (1) for sure. > > Before deciding a preference between (2) and (3), what are the actual > differences? ie, is (2) doing something practical that (3) has to bend > over for, or is (3)'s format better but wasn't practical before? is (2) > otherwise useful going forward?
I prefer (2) with internally using (3). I have such patch for the loop iterator around (that takes care of disposing of the iterator via a destructor - so no longer a need for the fancy BREAK_FROM_XXX stuff). Richard. > Andrew >
