On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:29:34AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > - should __array_size (b) be an integer constant (size_t)2, or should it
> > be non-constant (size_t)2 because the argument is a VLA (albeit a VLA
> > whose top-level dimension is an integer constant expression)?
>
> Ouch. I woul
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:35:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> What's right is:
>
> * In cases where it should return an integer constant (you've said that's
> when the argument is not a VLA, as for sizeof), there should be no
> diagnostic.
Right.
> * In cases where it should not return an in
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to
> > pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating
> > to an integer constant expression
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to
> pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating
> to an integer constant expression, but not if it is evaluating to an
> integer con
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > For whether arguments are evaluated, you need __array_size with arguments
> > that have side effects, and then test whether those side effects occurred.
> > For whether results are integer constant expressions, you can test e.g.
> > whether __array_
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:51:43PM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:05:36PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > > For a hypothetical change to the C standard itself, I think one might use
> > > the name "_ArraySize
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:11:54PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
>
> > So in other words, adapting all of the sizeof tests would be appropriate,
> > and sizeof tests for non-array types would change from expected passes to
> > expected failures?
>
> It's no
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > Critical issues to define and cover thoroughly in tests include the
> > rules for when operands of sizeof are evaluated, as adapted
> > appropriately for this keyword, and for when it returns various kinds
> > of constants.
>
> So in other words, adapt
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:05:36PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > I will look into submitting a PR for this properly soon, but will not
> > mind if someone wants to take this task upon themselves instead,
> > especially as we are into
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> As a brief aside, I do get an ICE with the following source, without any
> modifications of my own:
>
>int bar() { return foo(); }
>void baz(int c[foo()]) { return; }
>
> I will look into submitting a PR for this properly soo
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> For proposed features, I find documentation and testcases of much more
> value than the rest of the implementation.
I can see the logic of that. This is the part that I find a little
tricky, so please bear with me here.
> Critical
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> Documentation and test code are currently absent from the patch, but I
For proposed features, I find documentation and testcases of much more
value than the rest of the implementation. Critical issues to define and
cover thoroughly in tests include th
12 matches
Mail list logo
