On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 01:55:19AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I have now revised this patch from a year ago in line with my
> understanding of how _Generic ought to handle the various special
> cases (selector undergoes lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, and decay of
> functions and arrays to pointe
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Joseph> + /* The association's type, or NULL_TREE for 'default'.. */
>
> It's trivial, but I happened to notice that this ".." should be just
> ".". The extra "." was in the original patch too.
Thanks, I've applied this patch to fix this typo.
Index:
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
Joseph> I have now revised this patch from a year ago in line with my
Joseph> understanding of how _Generic ought to handle the various special
Joseph> cases
Thanks for doing this.
Joseph> + /* The association's type, or NULL_TREE for 'default'.. */
I
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The committee discussion includes a further point to ensure rvalues
> can have qualified type: treating qualified function return types the
(to ensure they *can't* have qualified type, that is)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
I have now revised this patch from a year ago in line with my
understanding of how _Generic ought to handle the various special
cases (selector undergoes lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, and decay of
functions and arrays to pointers, because nothing says it doesn't -
"The controlling expression of a ge
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
>
> Joseph> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> 6.3 is about conversions, and the first paragraph starts "several
> >> operators convert ...". Based on this, and other such phrases in the
> >> text, I thin
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
Joseph> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> 6.3 is about conversions, and the first paragraph starts "several
>> operators convert ...". Based on this, and other such phrases in the
>> text, I think the entire section applies to operators.
Joseph>
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, Tom Tromey wrote:
> 6.3 is about conversions, and the first paragraph starts "several
> operators convert ...". Based on this, and other such phrases in the
> text, I think the entire section applies to operators.
6.3.2.1 paragraphs 2 and 3 are phrased in terms of operators
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
Tom> I wasn't really aware of 6.3.2.1, but after reading it and re-reading
Tom> 6.5.1.1, I think I agree with his "model 0" interpretation: no promotion
Tom> or conversion.
Tom> I don't have a standards-based reason for this, though; just my belief
Tom> t
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I found this:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.std.c/InNlRotSWTc
>
> I wasn't really aware of 6.3.2.1, but after reading it and re-reading
> 6.5.1.1, I think I agree with his "model 0" interpretation: no promotion
> or conve
> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers writes:
Joseph> Could you explain the choices you have made for the issues
Joseph> raised on comp.std.c last month (regarding the handling of
Joseph> qualifiers on controlling expressions) and the rationale for
Joseph> those choices (and make sure there are approp
Could you explain the choices you have made for the issues raised on
comp.std.c last month (regarding the handling of qualifiers on controlling
expressions) and the rationale for those choices (and make sure there are
appropriate testcases)?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
This patch attempts to implement the C11 _Generic feature.
Based on the last comment in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
I am not at all sure I've done it correctly.
There are a couple of other things that aren't clear to me.
First, should c_parser_generic_selection call ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
