On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> Author: dgregor
>> Date: Tue Jan 13 17:10:51 2009
>> New Revision: 62192
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=62192&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Permitting typedefs without a name is a Microsoft/GNU extension
>>
> You've really got to wonder what motivated such an extension in the
> first place. Let's say the code was accepted due to a compiler bug.
That's most likely, yeah. GCC doesn't diagnose it, EDG does.
> It
> is still completely useless! How can there be enough of such code to
> force a compatibility extension?
In this case, the code was something like:
typedef enum { blah, blah2 };
So it does introduce blah and blah2 into scope, although of course you
have to convert them to integers to make use of them.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
