Re: c99 VLA semantics

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The status now would be bug 19771 plus various obscure cases  
> relating to
> when side effects in array size expressions are allowed and when  
> VLA types
> should be allowed outside of functions.

Not sure exactly how you want it represented in the web page, how's  
the below patch?

Ok?

Index: c99status.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/c99status.html,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -p -r1.44 c99status.html
--- c99status.html      13 May 2006 10:36:52 -0000      1.44
+++ c99status.html      21 Jun 2006 21:25:50 -0000
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ the much more limited support in GCC 2.9
</tr>

<tr><td><em>variable-length arrays</em></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td>Broken</td>
+    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td>
     <td></td>
</tr>

@@ -334,15 +334,6 @@ with <code>extern</code>, the opposite o
<code>inline</code> and <code>extern inline</code>.  This will
probably require existing glibc headers to be fixincluded.</li>

-<li>The C99 semantics of variable length arrays (VLAs) are not fully
-implemented by the existing GCC extension: the concept of variably
-modified (VM) types, and the rules for what identifiers can be
-declared with VLA or VM types, are not implemented (for example, GCC
-allows elements of VM type in a structure with block scope); while the
-syntax for arrays to be declared with <code>[*]</code> in parameter
-declarations is present, the semantics are not; and in general the
-implementation of VLAs has not been checked against C99  
requirements.</li>
-
<li><code>const</code>-qualified compound literals could share storage
with each other and with string literals, but currently don't.</li>