This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Warning for unadorned 0 in varargs lists?
> Judging by the huge thread this is generating, I'm seeing, as usual,
> lots of discussion about whether this is worth it, or not.
> [...]
> I'm not too optimistic about this. I predict we'll see an extra 50
> messages in this thread, with more and more esoteric cases being
> considered, no conclusion being reached, no consensus being achieved,
> and any functionality like sentinel provides staying on the wayside
> for an extra three years
Marc,
If you read the thread, you'll find that the proposed syntax I
submitted tries to solve this problem. I.e. it starts with the
existing "sentinel" keyword and all of the extra features come from
optional arguments. I also was careful to repeatedly say that the
extra features, checks and optional arguments should be left as future
refinements. I believe I got buy-in from Joseph in this regard.
This way your original implementation could be an acceptable "step 1".
That will at least get the ball rolling...
Would you like to polish your patch and submit for mainline?
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu