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: [C++0x] avoid extra tentative parse in range-based for loops

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Magnus Fromreide <magfr at lysator dot liu dot se>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:04:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [C++0x] avoid extra tentative parse in range-based for loops
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches
References: <AANLkTinOGbM81pMy4yE5-mPXJ3aHG8iRmnHtXF+qoMud@mail.gmail.com> <4CE14363.2020001@redhat.com> <AANLkTimTvP7X=Z8FEL-ogbkEWt9UpttiDBs+wXy768+Y@mail.gmail.com> <4CEC22E2.4010402@redhat.com> <AANLkTim2xj6kSRNsUoZ9Mq46BgryQchC9pTenSK=tRFM@mail.gmail.com> <4CEFDE42.1020005@redhat.com>

On 11/26/2010 05:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:


Then, what about adding somewhere?
TREE_USED (range_decl) = 1;
DECL_READ_P (range_decl) = 1;

Sounds good.

Replying to an old message: does __attribute__ ((__unused__)) work in this context? Or also, "for (Work : { w(), w(), w() })" could be accepted as a GCC extension.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++0x] avoid extra tentative parse in range-based for loops
  - From: Rodrigo Rivas

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