This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: using offsetof with g++

From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: using offsetof with g++
References: <m3znf9kzw9.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><Pine.LNX.4.44.0311062250080.23185-100000@wotan.suse.de>

Michael Matz writes:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On 6 Nov 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
 > 
 > > The issue is whether or that initialization could be provided in a
 > > non-"compromising" way -- such ways (like generalized initializers) are
 > > already subject of active works.
 > 
 > I see.  Although it remains to be seen if it's really worthwhile to add a
 > new language construct for something which can already be expressed quite
 > conveniently, just to work around this specific issue which also could be
 > fixed by relaxing the constraints on offsetof().

I don't mind migrating my code to some new construct if it means
I don't have to go through what I'm going through now again.
OTOH, if offsetof continues to work for well-defined and well-specified
cases beyond the trivial PODs, that's fine too.

References:
- Re: using offsetof with g++
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: using offsetof with g++
  - From: Michael Matz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]