This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [using gcc book] ch5.6 referring to a type with typeof
Chris Devers <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> The new declaration syntax never got designed, and no one currently
>> has any intention of designing any such thing. We are now a lot
>> more cautious about accepting extensions to the C language than we
>> were when this part of the manual was originally drafted. So I
>> would strike out all discussion of that.
> Here, or everywhere?
I meant just here.
> I'm not familiar the details of with how GCC has evolved over the years,
> but a lot of the book has these statements to the effect of "eventually
> the plan is to..." or "sooner or later GCC will no longer...".
> Short of a very thorough crash course in the current GCC status quo, I
> can't know if such statements are currently valid.
> Would it be prudent to seek out some or all examples of these future
> looking statements & put them on the list for review? I'm thinking that
> this would be a very large amount of material to examine.
It may well be a lot of material. However, I think it would be a good
idea. A lot of those statements are quite old.
> The first sentence is a run-on though, and hard to follow. (For that
> matter, so was my version, now that I re-read it.)
> Names that start with underscores are used for the local
> variables. This reduces the risk of conflict with variable
> names occurring in the expressions substituted for 'a' and
> 'b'. There is no way to eliminate this risk entirely, but
> it can be avoided in practice by sticking to such a naming
> Does it still gets the point across this way?
That sounds good to me.