This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] Eliminate make_cleanup_ui_file_delete / make ui_file a class hierarchy

On 2017-01-24 13:29, Simon Marchi wrote:
@@ -420,22 +412,20 @@ c_compute_program (struct compile_instance *inst,
 			   ? "&" : ""));
-      fputs_unfiltered (input, buf);
+      buf.puts (input);

-  fputs_unfiltered ("\n", buf);
+  buf.puts ("\n");

   /* For larger user expressions the automatic semicolons may be
      confusing.  */
   if (strchr (input, '\n') == NULL)
-    fputs_unfiltered (";\n", buf);
+    buf.puts (";\n");

   if (inst->scope != COMPILE_I_RAW_SCOPE)
-    fputs_unfiltered ("}\n", buf);
+    buf.puts ("}\n");

-  add_code_footer (inst->scope, buf);
-  code = ui_file_as_string (buf);
-  do_cleanups (cleanup);
-  return code;
+  add_code_footer (inst->scope, &buf);
+  return std::move (buf.string ());

I would have thought that this std::move would be superfluous, because
the compiler would do it anyway.  Is it the case?  Is it a good
practice to use move explicitly to make sure it's a move and not a
copy (and probably get a compile-time error if a move is not

Oh, I guess it's because buf.string() returns a reference and not a string directly. Otherwise, then I guess the compiler could have done some return value optimization (look at me, using words I don't understand).

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]