This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: generalized lvalues
On Nov 18, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
Really?
AFAIK.
Can you show some of the example errors?
Sounds boring and tedious, I don't see any benefit to doing that work.
I've accepted the extension is gone and just plan on informing users
it is gone.
But I'll give two examples (details changed partly to protect the
guilty and partly because I'm doing this by memory):
(1) #define foo(x) *(a, b, x)
(2) ((long*) p)++
Again, I'm not arguing that this extension should come back. I'm
unhappy about the whole situation, because (as Joe pointed out) we had
a choice between removing an extension without the usual amount of
notice and the usual number of releases where it's deprecated, or else
accepting a serious bug in our C++ front end and not fixing it. At the
time I thought the former choice was less bad, and I think that's still
probably true. But right now I'm mostly interested in collecting
information. I'd like to make sure I understand all of the
consequences of our decision.
I'm most interested in your comment, Andrew, that cast-as-lvalue was
impossible to accommodate in GIMPLE. Can you expand on that?
--Matt