Hi Joseph, On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 05:35:16PM GMT, Joseph Myers wrote: > Patches 1, 2 and 3 are logically nothing to do with this feature. I'll > wait for them to be reviewed so that we only have a single-patch series, > before doing final review of the main patch.
I do not fully understand. Who has to review patches 1,2,3? Also, do you want to merge them, then I resend patch 4 as a single patch, and then you review that one? If so, that looks like a good plan to me. Thanks! > Since the feature was accepted as _Lengthof, that's the form that should > be added to GCC; no __lengthof__ variant needed. Okay, I'm indiferent to choosing between both of those names; since they are equally harmful. ;) On the other hand, I'm tempted to propose a different name, and force ISO to reconsider and follow. The discussion on this list was more thorough than the short discussion at WG14, which didn't really take into consideration the dangers of harmful and error-prone nomenclature. > In general in GCC, > although not strictly required by the standard in this case, we use > pedwarn_c23 (pass OPT_Wpedantic as the option) to diagnose the use of a > new C2Y feature that's not in C23 Thanks; will do. Have a lovely night! Alex > (if -pedantic with a pre-C2Y standard, > or -Wc23-c2y-compat even in C2Y mode), with appropriate testcases to > verify this (error with -std=c23 -pedantic-errors, warning with -std=c23 > -pedantic, no diagnostic with -std=c23 -pedantic-errors > -Wno-c23-c2y-compat, no diagnostic with -std=c2y -pedantic-errors, warning > with -std=c2y -pedantic-errors -Wc23-c2y-compat). (pedwarn_c23 handles > that logic, you just need the pedwarn_c23 call and the tests for those > various cases.) > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > josmy...@redhat.com > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
