From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-134046-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 93272 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2016 16:31:29 -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 93253 invoked by uid 89); 14 Oct 2016 16:31:28 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:835
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:31:27 +0000
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DA86C04B92A;	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:31:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11])	by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9EGVPhD008762;	Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:31:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
To: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
References: <1476448162-20203-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <209d21ef-f3cb-6188-8654-943b2254c9b3@redhat.com> <4c97e05492f34198bb6cafc860bbdbc8@simark.ca> <09c955e2-8c9c-8dd7-67fe-cbc83c3cfa2e@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <3a56c0ef-309b-c7d7-b949-02223c296715@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:31:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <09c955e2-8c9c-8dd7-67fe-cbc83c3cfa2e@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2

On 10/14/2016 05:10 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 05:07 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 2016-10-14 08:50, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> +struct unique_ptr_nullptr_t
>>> +{
>>> +private:
>>> +  struct private_type;
>>> +public:
>>> +  /* Since null_type is private, the only way to construct this class
>>
>> null_type, or private_type?
> 
> Whoops, yes, private_type.  Used to be called null_type, but then
> I renamed it thinking that it'd be clearer.

I've changed the comment locally to this:

struct unique_ptr_nullptr_t
{
private:
  struct private_type;
public:
  /* Since private_type is private, the only way to construct this
     class is by passing a NULL pointer.
     See unique_ptr_base::operator= (const unique_ptr_nullptr_t &).  */
  unique_ptr_nullptr_t (private_type *) {}
};

Thanks,
Pedro Alves