Thanks for sending this out. If you believe it implements C99 correctly, what test cases are you using to verify this?
The test cases I added to test/Sema are useful, but minimal. If you believe this implements C99 rules correctly, I'm sure you've used/ developed additional test cases. Since this is a particularly tricky area, it would be great if you could include the test cases this patch implements correctly. snaroff On Jan 19, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > I figured I should get this out into the open, since my holding onto > it isn't very useful. It's essentially a patch replacing the whole of > initialization-list processing sema with a version written from > scratch. > > I'm not really asking for review of this, because it has quite a few > weaknesses. > > 1. It rewrites the whole thing from scratch, which is probably not the > best idea, even if it is only a few hundred lines. > 2. I'm not really satisfied with the way this patch is written; it has > a lot of code duplication. Some of the logic is a bit tricky, and both > the duplicate loops both within the method and the inablility to reuse > the logic for codegen/analysis are serious issues. > 3. It's not complete: I haven't gone over any of the logic required > for vectors. > > That said, the code does work, and I believe it implements C99 rules > correctly, so it might be useful source of ideas for Steve or whoever > else touches this code. > > -Eli > <rewritewipdiff.txt> _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
