search for: indexofinterestingel

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "indexofinterestingel".

[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 10
3
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
...aps add an ssize (or > equivalent) method to all of our internal data structures? They're a > lot more common than std::* containers. +1 Since C++20 is also introducing ssize [1] members, this makes a lot of sense to me. Using it would help avoiding an unsigned comparison as in if (IndexOfInterestingElement >= Container.size()) ... to sneak in from the start. Michael [1] http://wg21.link/p1227r1
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 10
3
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
...ata structures? They're a >> > lot more common than std::* containers. >> >> +1 >> >> Since C++20 is also introducing ssize [1] members, this makes a lot of >> sense to me. Using it would help avoiding an unsigned comparison as in >> >> if (IndexOfInterestingElement >= Container.size()) >> ... >> >> to sneak in from the start. >> >> Michael >> >> [1] http://wg21.link/p1227r1 >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org &...
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 10
3
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
...mon than std::* containers. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Since C++20 is also introducing ssize [1] members, this makes a lot of >>>> sense to me. Using it would help avoiding an unsigned comparison as in >>>> >>>> if (IndexOfInterestingElement >= Container.size()) >>>> ... >>>> >>>> to sneak in from the start. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> [1] http://wg21.link/p1227r1 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>&gt...
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 11
2
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
...;>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> Since C++20 is also introducing ssize [1] members, this makes a lot of >>>>>> sense to me. Using it would help avoiding an unsigned comparison as in >>>>>> >>>>>> if (IndexOfInterestingElement >= Container.size()) >>>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> to sneak in from the start. >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://wg21.link/p1227r1 >>>>>...
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 11
2
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
...also introducing ssize [1] members, this makes a lot >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> sense to me. Using it would help avoiding an unsigned comparison as >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (IndexOfInterestingElement >= Container.size()) >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to sneak in from the start. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>&g...
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
2019 Jun 08
4
[RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for regular arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior."
Hi, The LLVM coding style does not specify anything about the use of signed/unsigned integer, and the codebase is inconsistent (there is a majority of code that is using unsigned index in loops today though). I'd like to suggest that we specify to prefer `int` when possible and use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you intend to rely on wrapping behavior, see: