This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: Bug in ?: operator
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> That just leaves us with what to put in the broken-out code, i.e.,
> what to do about the volatile semantics.
>
> Concretely, I think:
>
> o require_complete_type_in_void should be removed.
> o a new function, to deal with the semantics of volatile in
> void contexts should be written. It should probably do what
> cplus_expand_expr_stmt does now; strip INDIRECT_REFs off
> references, and leave everything else alone.
> o that function should be called to transform an expression in a
> void context.
>
> That sounds simple enough. Nathan, do you agree?
sounds good to me. I think we should also warn on *(volatile S *)p, when
S is incomplete.
Expect a replacement for
http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/gcc-patches/1999-08/msg00844.html sometime
next week.
nathan
--
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: Computer Science Department :: Bristol University
I have seen the death of PhotoShop -- it is called GIMP
nathan@acm.org http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ nathan@cs.bris.ac.uk