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: What to do with the transparent_union attribute

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:23:06 -0500
Subject: Re: What to do with the transparent_union attribute
References: <200501241508.01537.stevenb@suse.de> <881A646B-6E11-11D9-AEA7-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <20050124142010.GA7177@nevyn.them.org>

On Jan 24, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:09:16AM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:

On Jan 24, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
So I was thinking, should we keep this attribute, or can it perhaps
be deprecated for GCC 4.0 and removed in 4.1?  Or is this attribute
still useful?
This attribute is useful it is used all over glibc.


Where "all over" is defined as "in four places, but they're all in
installed headers".

It appears that glibc uses this as a hack to allow redefinitions with
any union member to be accepted.  Does that still work?  I have no
idea.  Deprecating the extension eventually might be goodness, but it
will have to wait a long long time.


Well considering wait is just a lot in different places and there
have been no reports of it not working I assume it still works.

-- Pinski

References:
- What to do with the transparent_union attribute
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: What to do with the transparent_union attribute
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: What to do with the transparent_union attribute
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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