This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c/6660
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, "jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>, "jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:41:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c/6660
- References: <20020529130109.D4276@redhat.com>
--On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 01:01:09 PM -0700 Richard Henderson
<rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 02:34:14PM -0400, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> A normal struct/union member is "<type> <name>;". An anonymous
>> struct/union member is "<type>;", where <type> is required to be a
>> struct or union type.
>
> That's not how the feature is described in the C++ standard.
> In paragraph 9.5/2 it is described as
>
> union { member-specification } ;
>
> It is an obvious extension to allow struct instead of union.
>
> I think _that_ is much clearer than "type;" where type has
> a set of constraints.
Indeed.
Getting Microsoft compatibility is a large project, but I suppose
you can go one step at a time... If Microsoft uses the "type;" form
in their headers, then we should either fixinclude them or support it,
I suppose.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com