On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Mike, as Obj-C/C++ front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of Blocks
> extension implemented for Obj-C/C++ front-ends?
Sure.
Though, I'd really love a front-end extension to allow one to implement Blocks
as a pure library. :-) [ duck
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC.
I have a funny story about that one… I was just about ready to submit the
work, the GPLv3 happened. Ah… life goes on.
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:49 PM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
> What benefits does blocks have over nested functions in C and over lambas in
> C++?
The ability to compile existing code. The ability to compile code that uses
system header files on macosx. The ability to use third party libraries on
mac
On 11/04/2013 11:34 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Joseph, Richard, as C front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of
Blocks extension implemented for C front-end?
Yes. I believe the point (or one of the points) is that at least some
system headers
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:39 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > What is the status of this or similar features (eg, lambdas) in ISO C?
> > IOW, what was the feedback on the blocks part of
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1370.pdf, and
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> What is the status of this or similar features (eg, lambdas) in ISO C?
> IOW, what was the feedback on the blocks part of
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1370.pdf, and are there
> any follow-ups? IMHO, it would be preferable to suppor
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Joseph, Richard, as C front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of
> Blocks extension implemented for C front-end?
Yes. I believe the point (or one of the points) is that at least some
system headers in current Darwin require this extension (mor
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 17:28 +1300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
>
> There are many challenges (both technical and copyright) that require work
> before a
On 04/11/13 06:18, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
Hi,
I am considering a project to add Apple's bl
On 11/04/2013 06:10 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Clang's blocks are more powerful than GCC's nested functions, because
blocks may be placed on the heap, and therefore returned from a
function.
And they don't need code generation at run time.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I
>>> am looking at adding blocks sup
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
>> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
>
> What benefits does blocks have
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
What benefits does blocks have over nested functions in C and over lambas in
C+
Hi,
I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
There are many challenges (both technical and copyright) that require work
before any patches are ready for review, and I would appreciate indica
14 matches
Mail list logo
