This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: generalized lvalues

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
Cc: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:27:41 -0800
Subject: Re: generalized lvalues
References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <FD2BC998-3914-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <78169FF3-3916-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <20041117212847.A26376@synopsys.com> <6F5FC748-7BBD-44B9-8DDC-246949F16102@apple.com>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:19:18AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > I doubt if you will get the flood of questions you anticipate, because
> > few people even knew that the extension was there.  It is possible that
> > someone has a production program that is not valid C++ that will now
> > break, but if this happens we just tell them how to fix the program.
> 
> Just a random data point, 58 out of 1252 (4.6%) projects failed to 
> build because of it.

Really?  Can you show some of the example errors?  And are they really
due to this extension specifically, or to other changes in gcc 3.4.x?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Mike Stump

References:
- generalized lvalues
  - From: Matt Austern
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Matt Austern
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: generalized lvalues
  - From: Mike Stump

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