On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, fjahanian wrote: > > 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.
builtins aren't overloadable, -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
