This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: Fix PR 13275
Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
> "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
> |
> | > It implements something that is not offsetof, it is a real extension
> | > -- let's call a cat a cat. I'm not sure it is advisable to set the
> | > precedent where this extension, which does not implement offsetof,
> | > is threated this way.
> |
> | Would you like to submit a patch which does it the way you want it
> | done?
>
> There are at least three issues here:
>
> (1) Do we want to hide that extension under the name of implementing
> offset -- where actually we do not?
*shrug*
> (2) It was objected, that one would be doing ugly things with the
> grammar, but no preceision was given. I would appreciate to
> have some outline of such things (so that they may be avoided)
can't comment
> (3) Do we want to that precendent? I may be wrong but my impression
> is that your question is somewhat rhetorical, and I would love
> to be wrong there.
not sure what you mean. I'm trying to make a meta-point: given that
we are in stage 3, and given that we have a real bug which the patch
does fix, objections of the form "It should be done in a totally
different way" would carry significantly more weight if they came
attached to alternative patches. Particularly if the totally
different way might be too invasive.
zw