This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [patch] Reject invalid specifiers for virtual functions


On 12 Dec, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> 
>> Like in this patch:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-02/msg02318.html
> 
> Right.
> 
>> In the review, Neil suggested that cpplib.h is not a good place to put the
>> flag, though.
> 
> I disagree with Neil on this point, especially given that we have
> NAMED_OP, which is C++-specific.  Per is our current cpplib maintainer;
> perhaps he has input?

I agree with Mark. Having definitions for different bits of the same
byte in different files is a recipe for disaster. The bit should be
defined in cpplib.h even if it is otherwise not used in libcpp.

If we need this bit for some other purpose in the future we can still
try to go back to NAMED_OP. Any preferences for the name of the bit?
How about PURE_ZERO ?

Regards,
Volker



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