On 08.10.2024 17:38, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 10/8/24 09:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.10.2024 17:30, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Hmmm, looking at the complete documentation for this built-in, and the
>>> code, I think I'd go a little farther with fixing up the docs.
>>>
>>> Si
On 10/8/24 09:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.10.2024 17:30, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
[snip]
Hmmm, looking at the complete documentation for this built-in, and the
code, I think I'd go a little farther with fixing up the docs.
Since requiring the first operand to be a constant is also different
be
On 08.10.2024 17:30, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 10/8/24 08:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.06.2024 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Present wording has misled people to believe the ?: operator would be
>>> evaluating all three of the involved expressions.
>>>
>>> gcc/
>>>
>>> * doc/extend.texi:
On 10/8/24 08:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.06.2024 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
Present wording has misled people to believe the ?: operator would be
evaluating all three of the involved expressions.
gcc/
* doc/extend.texi: Clarify __builtin_choose_expr() similarity to
the ?: oper
On 19.06.2024 16:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Present wording has misled people to believe the ?: operator would be
> evaluating all three of the involved expressions.
>
> gcc/
>
> * doc/extend.texi: Clarify __builtin_choose_expr() similarity to
> the ?: operator.
Anyone? I don't think I
