This is the mail archive of the 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: offering a full implementation of C99 compound initializers traversal

Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
I have done a full implementation of the semantics of C99 compound
Given how complex this is (to me anyway) and the fact that the version
of g++ that I have doesn't seem to do them fully

It isn't clear what you are offering. I don't see the term "compound initializer" in the C99 standard. We need a better explanation of what feature you are talking about. Incomplete initializers? Initializers with designators?

I also don't understand why you mention g++. g++ follows the C++ language standard, not the C language standard. Are you asking for us to extend the C++ language to include a feature present in the C99 standard? That is a rather different situation from offering a patch for a C++ language feature we haven't implemented yet. Others may not agree that extending the C++ language in this manner is appropriate.

You also didn't mention what version of g++ you have. If you have an old version, and you are asking about a standard language feature, then it could have been implemented already.

We aren't going to accept a patch in the C++ front end unless the patch is GPLed, and the copyright is assigned to the FSF. That is standard policy for GCC patches. A modified BSD license (without the advertising clause) would not be acceptable for something like this. It might be OK for a library, but not for code in a language front end.

If the feature you are taking about is already implemented in the C front end, then we may not need new code, we might be able to reuse code that already exists in the C front end.
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support,

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