From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-133817-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 101085 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2016 17:49:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 101073 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2016 17:49:21 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:112, mimics, skill, our
X-HELO: simark.ca
Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:49:19 +0000
Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112)	id D7E1F1E159; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A6B1E124;	Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 17:49:00 -0000
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
In-Reply-To: <1476117992-5689-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com>
References: <1476117992-5689-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1476117992-5689-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <238251ad623cb3a2f8532f07a15dd263@simark.ca>
X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.0
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2

This is clearly way above my C++ skill level, I feel like I'm reading 
boost code.  But since it's well encapsulated in a "support" file and 
mimics the standard behaviors, I think it's good.  I just hope the whole 
codebase won't end up lookup like this :).

On 2016-10-10 12:46, Pedro Alves wrote:
>  - support for all of 'ptr != NULL', 'ptr == NULL' and 'if (ptr)'
>    using the safe bool idiom.

Since our coding style doesn't allow the "if (ptr)" form, is it possible
to make it cause a compile error?

> +/* Base class of our unique_ptr emulation.  Contains code common to
> +   both the unique_ptr<T, D> and unique_ptr<T[], D>.  */
> +
> +template<typename T, typename D>
> +class unique_ptr_base : public safe_bool <unique_ptr_base<T, D> >
> +{
> +public:
> +  typedef T *pointer;

pointer_type?