This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [objc-improvements-branch]: FYI: Yet another round of ObjC++ work committed -- ADDENDUM
On 30 Jun 2004, at 3.10, David Ayers wrote:
Ziemowit Laski wrote:
Oh, yeah, and I cleaned up <objc/...> headers to be usable with
Did you simply merge in Andrew's changes to libobjc or were there other
David, if you want to whip-up an identifier cleanup patch for
objc-improvements-branch, go for it. :-)
Here is the cumulative patch adapted for the objc-improvements-branch
[RFA] c-parse.in unify ObjC tokens
[RFA][objc] Identifier cleanup
[RFC/RFA] [ObjC] Class <protocol> support I
I'm currently doing a mainline->objc-improvements-branch merge, which
probably will pick up some of this. When I'm done, I'll check your 3
patches to be sure.
I see that you have dealt with gcc/testsuite/objc.dg/id-1.m in a
different way already on the branch. But I must admit that I find the
id-1.m:4: error: conflicting types for 'id'
id-1.m:0: error: previous declaration of 'id' was here
(note the missing location and line number 0 as this seems to be a
in type now) a bit misleading.
Well, yes, it's a built-in type, but at the same time we must allow
to (re)define it as well. Certainly, if there is some trivial special
we could apply so that the 'id-1.m:0: ...' message becomes more
I have no objections. But I don't see a point in spending too much
time on this. :-)
Anyway, bootstrapped and testing passed (including obj-c++)
PS: Why did you choose 'obj-c++' over of 'objc++' in various places? I
seems needlessly inconsistent.
This is primarily to keep gengtype and DejaGNU happy; these dislike it
if the name of one language is a proper prefix of another. :-)