On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > >>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. >>> >>> I wasn't saying we should allow the invalid prototype. I think we >>> should just treat it as a warning instead of an error in some cases >>> (maybe even all), and the effect will be that we just ignore the >>> declaration in the code. I'm certainly not proposing we create >>> ill-formed AST nodes. >> >> What if the invalid declaration is also a definition? Do we just >> skip over the entire body? > > Invalid definitions of builtins will only impact people who > *implement* libc/libm. To me, it seems nicer to handle the definition > case as an error an allow an invalid declaration than make them both > an error...
My invalid definition should be treated as a form of a specialization and be allowed, for example, with an 'overloadable' attribute. - Fariborz > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
