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: [tree-ssa] Merge status

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I agree.  It is very easy to write casts as lvalues, and for a long
> > time gcc didn't even warn about them.  In looking through the mail
> > archives, I see cogent reasons for removing the extension for C++, but
> > no good reasons to remove it for C.  As far as I know, the extension
> > is umabiguous in C, and is simply syntactic sugar.
> Syntactic sugar and, therefore, not worth the costs in maintainability;
> extensions should add expressive value to justify themselves.  See the
> amount of code removed that was to support extended lvalues as evidence.  
> (There were also cases where -pedantic caused errors rather than warnings
> from extended lvalues, which did not seem worthwhile to fix - this does
> mean the deprecation warnings in 3.4 may not trigger for the case where
> the cast is to the same type.)
> One of the biggest users of GCC extensions is the Linux kernel; Linus
> Torvalds has supported getting rid of this extension, describing it as
> "braindamaged". I concur; code using the extension seems to be
> intrinsically obfuscated.
> If SPEC uses extended lvalues, how did it ever work with non-GCC
> compilers?

It has number of #ifdef __GCC__
I expect just removing them will make it work.

> -- 
> Joseph S. Myers

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