Re: offering a full implementation of C99 compound initializers traversal

[Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>]

Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> I have done a full implementation of the semantics of C99 compound
> initializers
> 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, http://www.SpecifixInc.com