search for: defaultconstructil

...s, if any, so I run inst_iterator via checks provided by Boost.Iterators. First problem is that inst_iterator (and actually InstIterator class template) is not Assignable, because it has a reference data member, while standard requires all iterators to be assignable. Second InstIterator is not DefaultConstructile, which is required from Forwarditerator. Also, I get error because InstIterator::difference_type is not signed integer type (its defined as unsigned), but in this case the current standard does not say it's should be signed, though it looks reasonable and proposal for new version of stand...

...or via checks provided by > Boost.Iterators. > > First problem is that inst_iterator (and actually InstIterator class template) > is not Assignable, because it has a reference data member, while standard > requires all iterators to be assignable. Ok. > Second InstIterator is not DefaultConstructile, which is required from > Forwarditerator. Ok, makes sense. > Also, I get error because InstIterator::difference_type is not signed integer > type (its defined as unsigned), but in this case the current standard does > not say it's should be signed, though it looks reasonable and...

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >