c99 VLA semantics

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > I don't think it can be intended that functions with VM arguments
> > > themselves have VM type
> > 
> > And I believe this patch does that.  I'm starting up a testsuite run on it
> > now, but don't expect any fallout.
> > 
> > Ok?
> 
> My fingers found the send button instead of the attach button, sorry about
> that.

As a patch to tree.c, I can't approve this; the question would be whether 
other languages want something different.

> Oh, and on another topic, the web pages that say that we don't do C99 VLA
> types I think can be cleaned up with the recent work.

The status now would be bug 19771 plus various obscure cases relating to 
when side effects in array size expressions are allowed and when VLA types 
should be allowed outside of functions.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)