On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 08:49:57PM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:13:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 03/21/2016 11:15 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > > > > > >>I'll resist the urge for now to apply RAII principles in this code, but > > >>that'd probably a much cleaner way to think about the problem in general. > > > > > >I worked on a couple attempts to c++ify bitmaps a while back, but never > > >finished any of them, but I could probably publish what I did in case > > >someone wants to pick that up for gcc 7. > > Can't hurt. > > ok, finally got around to that. The git mirror now has branches > tbsaunde/bitmap tbsaunde/bitmap2 and tbsaunde/bitvec. I think the first > two actually aren't very valuable, trying add a ctor / dtor to > bitmap_head itself seems like a poor idea bound to run into some strange > use of bitmaps. It seems a lot safer to add a auto_bitmap and move > things over to it. On the other hand the bitvec branch is trying to > build something sbitmap like, but trying to use vec to manage the > storage instead of doing it manually. I'm not sure why I didn't finish that > idea.
oh, and now I do remember why, it looks like it depends on making vec call destructors when objects in the vector are removed which makes sense, but it makes implementing pop () tricky. Trev > > Trev > > > > > FWIW, bitmaps are low level and independent of trees, rtl, etc that we ought > > to (in theory) be able to class-ify them and build a real unit testing > > framework for them. > > > > jeff
