On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:36 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:17 PM, David Blaikie wrote: >> 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. > > We don't seem to have a place to put this kind of Clang-specific developer > "policy statement",
We already have multiple Clang subcategories mentioned here http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners - but yeah, might be a bit too fine grained for that page? > and it doesn't really belong in the LLVM repository. Hmm? We seem to describe a variety of contribution areas in the contributor file (though ownership can/does differs from contribution). > I could start a new page, or we could let the archive speak for itself. Yep - it was just a thought if there was a place to write it down/someone felt it should be - didn't mean to initiate/create any extra policy/maintenance burden. > Doug, thoughts? > > John. [& sorry, John, for the reply rather than reply-all the first time] _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
