This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: c99 VLA semantics

From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:46:32 -0700
Subject: Re: c99 VLA semantics
References: <D45AFAB2-8F32-4350-9C46-9389D8ECD4FE@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606161744160.7898@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <8B163F51-5193-477A-993C-311AF290F9A0@apple.com>

On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:

On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I don't think it can be intended that functions with VM arguments
themselves have VM type
And I believe this patch does that. I'm starting up a testsuite run on it now, but don't expect any fallout.

Ok?

My fingers found the send button instead of the attach button, sorry about that.

I'm sorry this doesn't have a testcase, but I cannot do one up right now... I do expect to be able to come back to this and contribute one.

Oh, and on another topic, the web pages that say that we don't do C99 VLA types I think can be cleaned up with the recent work.

Attachment: vla-4ntc.diffs.txt
Description: Text document

Follow-Ups:
- Re: c99 VLA semantics
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- Re: c99 VLA semantics
  - From: Mike Stump

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]