Geoffrey Keating wrote:
A typedef declaration which adds semantic attributes to a non-class
type is valid, but again creates an entirely new type.
It is invalid to
do anything that would require either type_info or a mangled name for
Q, including using it as an argument to typeid, thowing
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Jason Merrill wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Yes, I would be happy to explicitly ignore semantic attributes in typedefs
as well, with a warning (or even an error). However, I had not realized
that we ever did that; I'm surprised that the change that instituted this is
Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think my patch changed the handling of class typedefs; certainly
my intent was only to change how we handle
class __attribute ((foo)) C
Previously we rejected it, now we apply the attributes to the class.
OK, that certainly makes sense. (That's one of the
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I was referring to the change in extend.texi
-the closing brace. It is ignored if the content of the structure, union
-or enumerated type is not defined in the specifier in which the
-attribute specifier list is used---that is, in usages such as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have a number of C++ PRs open around problems with code like this:
struct S {
void f();
virtual void g();
};
typedef __attribute__((...)) struct S T;
If the attribute makes any substantive change to S (e.g., changes its
We have a number of C++ PRs open around problems with code like this:
struct S {
void f();
virtual void g();
};
typedef __attribute__((...)) struct S T;
If the attribute makes any substantive change to S (e.g., changes its
size, alignment, etc.) then bad things happen. For
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
We have a number of C++ PRs open around problems with code like this:
struct S {
void f();
virtual void g();
};
typedef __attribute__((...)) struct S T;
I was happy with the state before r115086 (i.e. with it being documented
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
We have a number of C++ PRs open around problems with code like this:
struct S {
void f();
virtual void g();
};
typedef __attribute__((...)) struct S T;
I was happy with the state before r115086 (i.e. with it
On Oct 15, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
A typedef declaration which adds semantic attributes to a POD class
type with no function members is valid, but creates an entirely new
type, different from all other types except others formed by adding
the same combination of semantic
If the attribute makes any substantive change to S (e.g., changes its
size, alignment, etc.) then bad things happen. For example, the member
functions of S have expectations about the layout of S that are not
satisfied if they are called with a T. Depending on the attribute and
10 matches
Mail list logo
