Hello,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2022-11-16 06:26, Michael Matz wrote:
> > char foobar(void);
> > int main(void) {
> >return != 0;
> > }
>
> That still has undefined behavior according to draft C23,
This is correct (and also holds for the actually working variant later,
Hello,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > Unrelated but I was a bit tempted to ask for throwing in
> > > -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch to default -Werror while Clang 16 was at
> > > it, but I suppose we don't want the world to burn too much,
> >
> > :-) It's IMHO a bug in the
Hello,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Sam James wrote:
> Unrelated but I was a bit tempted to ask for throwing in
> -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch to default -Werror while Clang 16 was at
> it, but I suppose we don't want the world to burn too much,
:-) It's IMHO a bug in the standard that it misses
Hey,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > The idea is so obvious that I'm probably missing something, why autoconf
> > can't use that idiom instead. But perhaps the (historic?) reasons why it
> > couldn't be used are gone now?
>
> Ironically, modern GCC and LLVM optimize ' != 0'
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2022-11-15 11:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Another perspective is that autoconf shouldn't get in the way of
> > making the C and C++ toolchain more secure by default.
>
> Can you cite any examples of a real-world security flaw what would be
>
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is already quite
> > nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant because
> > C++ _is not the only language out there_. I'm not sure how often I
> > have to repeat this
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> It is clear to me now. Let's go with
> >>
> >> ---
> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> >> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
> >> register should be used to pass or return an
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > ---
> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> > are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
> > register should be used to pass or return an object of empty type that's
> > trivially copyable.
Hi,
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote:
> > An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects
> > (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type.
> >
> > doesn't cover "trivially-copyable".
>
> That's correct. Whether a type is trivially copyable is unrelated to
>
Hi,
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote:
> >> > The trivially copyable is gone again. Why is it not necessary?
> >>
> >> The C++ ABI doesn't defer to the C psABI for types that aren't
> >> trivially-copyable. See
> >> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#normal-call
> >
> >
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects
> >> (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type. No
> >> memory slot nor register should be used to pass or return an object
> >> of empty type.
> >
> > The trivially
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Richard Smith wrote:
> >> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects
> >> (recursively) are of class, structure, union, or array type. No
> >> memory slot nor register should be used to pass or return an object
> >> of empty type.
> >
> > The
Hi,
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Here is the new definition:
>
> An empty type is a type where it and all of its subobjects (recursively)
> are of class, structure, union, or array type. No memory slot nor
> register should be used to pass or return an object of empty type.
The
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Any suggestions on new wording, something like
>
> 1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class.
> 2. "empty type". An empty type is a type where it and all of its
> subobjects are of class or array type.
>
> Does it cover
>
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 12:40, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> > You never define "POD for the purposes of layout", and I can only
> > interpret it as being equivalent to "standard-layout".
>
> As Richard pointed out, it's defined in the C++ ABI.
15 matches
Mail list logo
