Re: GCC's statement expression extension

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot coom>]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:

| On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Mark Mitchell wrote:
| 
| > (Actually, I bet you can write those functions with only __typeof__
| > and not statement-expressions:
| > 
| >   # define __TGMATH_UNARY_REAL_ONLY(Val, Fct) \
| 
| Actually I've concluded on examining the specification of the <tgmath.h>
| macros that glibc's versions are broken and the GCC's current facilities
| don't seem to be sufficient to implement them anyway.  More on this later.  
| (Quite how the standards committee thought the type-generic macros fitted
| in with the spirit of C, I don't know.)

Well, if you come up with a good understanding of how that should be done,
please ping me: I'm curious about how the C committee thought <tgmath.h>
could be implemented. 

| > Does that do the trick?  The __typeof__ extension is far less
| > problematic than statement-expressions -- although even __typeof__ has
| > serious issues in C++, where the type of an expression can depend on
| > its context.)
| 
| Perhaps these facilities can be deprecated / removed first in the C++
| compiler.

That seems to me to be good step.

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                             http://www.codesourcery.com