On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Schleifer <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 12.07.2012 um 04:21 schrieb John McCall: > > >> On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: >>> >>> Am 12.07.2012 um 02:58 schrieb John McCall: >>>> >>>> Subscripting on objects has an existing meaning in fragile runtimes: >>>> it's pointer arithmetic. Is that meaning useful? Well, possibly not, but >>>> nonetheless such code has historically been valid. >>> >>> >>> As such code does not exist for ObjFW as there is not that historical >>> part, I'd like to just forbid pointer arithmetics and allow subscripts. >> >> >> That seems totally reasonable. > > > Ok, then I'll add it using the way you described before. > > >> I added a test case (please do include tests in your patches!) and >> committed this as r160102. > > > Nice! > > I'm not exactly sure as to how these tests work. From looking at the commit, > it seems it's ObjC code with comments that first specify the command to > compile and then define the expected in LLVM ASM? > > > >> For the record, I should establish a policy here and give you some fair >> warning. We're happy to keep support for ObjFW in the tree as long as >> you're maintaining your runtime. If it ever looks like it's become a dead >> project, and we can't reach any maintainers for an extended period of time, >> we reserve the right to strip this code out as bit-rotted. Okay? > > > That sounds fair. Please contact me at this e-mail address if there are any > questions regarding the ObjFW support. As long as you don't remove it > without contacting me, everything is fine by me :).
Might want to put that down in the code owners documentation and/or authors file if you haven't already. > > -- > Jonathan _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
