Re: [RFA 09/22] Remove make_cleanup_restore_current_ui

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 10/12/2016 11:43 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Pedro> I _think_ they've all been reviewed now.  Please push in
> Pedro> the ones that are independent and OK already, and repost the
> Pedro> others.
> 
> Ok.  I think after all is said and done, there are 5 that can go in and
> the rest need something -- either final review on scoped_restore or
> unique_ptr.

Yeah, sounds right.  I was trying get the gdb::unique_ptr in, in order
to unblock the cases I suggested you use unique_ptr, but I'm a bit
confused on what to do about it now...  I _think_ people are generally
OK with it.  There was some opposition, but I'm not sure anymore
whether it still exists.  C++11 is now on the table, but maybe a
staged approach (enable C++11 while supporting C++03 too for a while,
to catch issues) would make sense anyway.
But I'd really like to move forward with deciding on _some_
smart pointer to use, in order to unblock further conversion.
I'll re-review tomorrow with a fresher head (and give people time to
comment on actual implementation details (or just say they mean to),
if they want...)

> BTW, I'm wondering if you want scoped_restore in its own header.  It
> didn't occur to me while writing it, but now it seems like a good idea.

It does sound like a good idea.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves