On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:18:56PM -0600, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:55:08PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > >
> > > > x()
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > switch (1) {
> > > > case 0:
> > > >
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:55:08PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > > x()
> > > {
> > >
> > > switch (1) {
> > > case 0:
> > > case 1:
> > > case 2:
> > > case 3:
> > > ;
> > > }
> > > }
> >
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 02:52:42PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> > GCC will complain the absence of a statement after `out1:out2:`, but not
> > two complains for `out1' and `out2', because they form a single entity.
>
> I u
Michael Meissner writes:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:54:33PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:59:24PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
>>> It's required by ISO C, and since that's the standard now, gcc
>>> spits out a warning. Just adding a ; is enough and already
>>> done f
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> GCC will complain the absence of a statement after `out1:out2:`, but not
> two complains for `out1' and `out2', because they form a single entity.
I understand the formal specs (the email from Michael is very clear). What I'm
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > x()
> > > {
> > >
> > > switch (1) {
> > > case 0:
> > > case 1:
> > > case 2:
> > > case 3:
> > > ;
> > > }
>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 03:56:52PM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> [..] A null expression, specified with
> the ";" is a small price to pay for simplifying the error detection. [..]
I'm not convinced this is a significant simplification (also considering the
"hard" way is just working fine). I thin
- Received message begins Here -
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > x()
> > > {
> > >
> > > switch (1) {
> > > case 0:
> > > case 1:
> >
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:54:33PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:59:24PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > It's required by ISO C, and since that's the standard now, gcc spits out a
> > warning. Just adding a ; is enough and already done for most stuff in
> > 2.4.0-test1
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:09:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > And yes I can see that the whole point of the change is that
> > they want to also forbids this:
> >
> > x()
> > {
> > goto out;
> > out:
> > }
> >
> > and I dislike not being
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:55:08PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > x()
> > {
> >
> > switch (1) {
> > case 0:
> > case 1:
> > case 2:
> > case 3:
> > ;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Why am I required to put a `;' only in the last
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 04:06:36PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > Both examples allow an extern declaration inside a function scope
> > which is also contrary to any (even old) 'C' standards. 'extern'
> > is always file
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> And yes I can see that the whole point of the change is that
> they want to also forbids this:
>
> x()
> {
> goto out;
> out:
> }
>
> and I dislike not being allowed to do the above as well infact ;).
What's wrong with the - more readable -
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > x()
> > {
> >
> > switch (1) {
> > case 0:
> > case 1:
> > case 2:
> > case 3:
> > ;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Why am I required to put a `;' only in the la
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> x()
> {
>
> switch (1) {
> case 0:
> case 1:
> case 2:
> case 3:
> ;
> }
> }
>
> Why am I required to put a `;' only in the last case and not in
> all the previous ones?
That `;' above is NOT in just the l
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> x()
> {
>
> switch (1) {
> case 0:
> case 1:
> case 2:
> case 3:
> ;
> }
> }
>
> Why am I required to put a `;' only in the last case and not in all
> the previous ones? Or maybe gcc-latest is forgetting to
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Both examples allow an extern declaration inside a function scope
> which is also contrary to any (even old) 'C' standards. 'extern'
> is always file scope, there's no way to make it otherwise.
AFAIR (rather dimly... no K&
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:59:24PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> It's required by ISO C, and since that's the standard now, gcc spits out a
> warning. Just adding a ; is enough and already done for most stuff in
> 2.4.0-test12.
I'm not complaining gcc folks, I just dislike the new behaviour in gen
> void foo()
> {
> extern int a;
> if(a) goto a;
> return;
> a:
> printf("%d\n", a);
> }
>
> Both examples allow an extern declaration inside a function scope
> which is also contrary to any (even old) 'C' standards. 'exte
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Franz Sirl wrote:
> At 18:43 15.12.00, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:07:55PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > > Current code makes perfect sense if you put a 'break;' after the last
> >
> >Current code makes perfect sense also without the break. I
At 18:43 15.12.00, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:07:55PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Current code makes perfect sense if you put a 'break;' after the last
>
>Current code makes perfect sense also without the break. I guess that's a
>strict check to try to catch bugs,
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:07:55PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Current code makes perfect sense if you put a 'break;' after the last
Current code makes perfect sense also without the break. I guess that's a
strict check to try to catch bugs, but calling it "deprecated" is wrong, it
should
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:29:28AM -0500, Mike Black wrote:
> > include/linux/signal.h
> >
> > There's a couple like this -- isn't this case statement upside down???
> >
> > extern inline void siginitset(sigset_t *set, unsigned long mask)
> > {
> >
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:29:28AM -0500, Mike Black wrote:
> include/linux/signal.h
>
> There's a couple like this -- isn't this case statement upside down???
>
> extern inline void siginitset(sigset_t *set, unsigned long mask)
> {
> set->sig[0] = mask;
> switch (_NSIG_WORDS) {
include/linux/signal.h
There's a couple like this -- isn't this case statement upside down???
extern inline void siginitset(sigset_t *set, unsigned long mask)
{
set->sig[0] = mask;
switch (_NSIG_WORDS) {
default:
memset(&set->sig[1], 0, sizeof(long)*(_NSIG
25 matches
Mail list logo
