On 13/07/16 14:26, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo"
_
On 07/13/2016 07:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo"
Hi Matthew,
I'm back to this effort now, thanks for patience.
> Thanks for the update. I've read through the whole proposal again and
> it looks good. I'd like to discuss legacy objects a bit more though...
Thanks for your review.
> > 3.4 Relocatable Object Generation
> >
> > Tools that p
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20160713 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20160713/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
Thank you for your answer.
It is very useful for me.
Best regards;
Truong TT
> On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> (You have something wrong with your emails - the subject for your post
> had a copy of most of the body of the email. I have changed it to
> somethi
Hi,
No problem - helping out is one way users can contribute to the gcc
community, to save the gcc developers a little effort.
Next time, however, keep questions like this on the gcc-help mailing
list - it is for asking for help with using gcc. The gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list is for development
Hi!
I had recently noticed that given:
#ifndef __cplusplus /* C */
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
#else /* C++ */
static_assert(0, "foo");
#endif
..., for C we diagnose:
[...]:2:1: error: static assertion failed: "foo"
_Static_assert(0, "foo");
^~
...,
