Re: [PATCH] Use an std::vector for inline_states

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2018-04-09 05:10, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I remembered now that I forgot so point at something that I had wanted
> to mention before.
> 
> It's that I think that this:
> 
>> +template <typename T>
>> +T
>> +unordered_remove (std::vector<T> &vec, typename 
>> std::vector<T>::iterator it)
>> +{
> 
> won't work as is with gdb::def_vector/gdb::byte_vector, because the 
> above
> assumes std::vector has a single template parameter, while in reality 
> it
> has two.
> 
> I think this can either be fixed by adding an allocator template 
> parameter
> to unordered_remove:
> 
>  template<typename T, typename A>
>  void
>  unordered_erase (std::vector<T, A> &v,
>                   typename std::vector<T, A>::iterator pos)
> 
> or by making the whole vector/container type a template like in
> my example:
> 
>  template<typename Vector>
>  void
>  unordered_erase (Vector &v, typename Vector::iterator pos)

That sounds like a good change, but let's do it as a separate patch (as 
renaming the functions).

I was wondering if it would also be worthwhile to have an equivalent of 
std::remove_if that doesn't preserve the order of the remaining elements 
(which could have been used in this patch).

I pushed my patch in, including the missing usage of unordered_remove 
that you pointed out in your other message.

Thanks,

Simon