This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
- From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches List" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:15:17 -0600
- Subject: Re: [C++0x PATCH] Remove auto as a storage class specifier
- References: <24b520d20802281347y38351b34i8a2cabd61d6c6e26@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360802281352h640ebeb6oe271377f82eb8ccd@mail.gmail.com> <206fcf960802291404t32e72087u1ab5178e9f39f7c8@mail.gmail.com> <de8d50360802291758p54e9b301g154cf89fe18a5c4d@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> > Ask the C++ committee. GCC mailing list is thw wrong place.
>
> Yes but the C++ committee members who (I hope) represent GCC are on
> the list here so asking here is asking those folks for some pushing
> back to them.
The removal is now part of the WP. It was suggested that the
WG14 liaison reports to WG14 to take similar action. I don't remember
we actually voted on that specific request.
The `storage class specifier' was not found to be sufficiently determining to
cripple the new meaning of `auto'. Some closed source compilers and
software vendors reported by that examining large source code base
-- not at the reach of popular code search engine -- revealed exactly 2
uses of auto: one in comment; in the other case the programmer thought
he was naming a function parameter...
Anyway, none of GCC developers working in WG21 (especially in CWG)
believed there are sufficiently convincing arguments to keep the old meaning.
Note that `auto' is still a keyword -- now useful.
>
> -- Pinski
>