This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
On 10/02/2013 02:00 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:Thanks. But then the function actually *is* implemented, saying 'not implemented' is misleading. Please change the xml to something like 'isn't correctly implemented', or more informally, 'needs work', up to you, but please adjust it.Committed.
Thanks.
You see, at variance with natural languages, for an artificial language like C++ it's easy to distinguish practical instances of unimplemented and very badly implemented: in the former case the function doesn't have a definition, or, even more clearly, doesn't even have a declaration. transform_primary can't be unimplemented ;)I learn that an implementation could be incorrect ;)
Paolo.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |