https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #24 from Martin Uecker ---
This can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #23 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:768ce4f0ceb030e38427e85e483ed44330cd5da7
commit r11-5397-g768ce4f0ceb030e38427e85e483ed44330cd5da7
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
pskocik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pskocik at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So this looks like a dup of PR39985. It seems that, if anything, we should
modify __typeof to drop all qualifiers. I.e. that all of the following
__typeofs yield int:
const int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #20 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
I would be much happier with a generic operator that makes any object into an
rvalue. One way that comes close would be `1 ? (X) : (X)`. This is an
expression that transforms any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #21 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
I would be much happier with a generic operator that makes any object into an
rvalue. One way that comes close would be `1 ? (X) : (X)`. This is an
expression that transforms any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
So this looks like a dup of PR39985. It seems that, if anything, we should
modify __typeof to drop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #11 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #10)
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
(Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #13 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
What does clang differently wrt _Generic?
Arrays. I don't recall which way around, but one of gcc and clang converts
array types to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #14 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
Perhaps we should end the discussion here, this goes too far for a bug report,
and we should push for a solution of this type of questions by the C committee.
Perhaps you could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #16 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
Usually such bugs are SUSPENDED with reference to the DR and when the DR is
resolved, the bug is resolved accordingly.
Here the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jens Gustedt from comment #16)
Here the situation is a bit more complicated, since __typeof__ is an
extension to C, so no DR will directly say something about this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #4 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
This is a surprising policy change that occurs a random point in time, namely
where _Atomic is introduced to the C language and in addition does that in a
very unituitive way. Why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
(_Generic does make sure to treat its controlling expression as an rvalue,
removing qualifiers including _Atomic as well as ensuring GCC's internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
This bugzilla really sucks. There is my second comment that I place here gone
to the void.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
(Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee
doesn't agree on that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #8 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
(Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee
doesn't agree on that interpretation, and other compiler implementors don't
agree either. Nothing in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #7 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
This bugzilla really sucks. There is my second comment that I place here gone
to the void. Obviously you did see it, since you replied to my mention of
_Generic, but now its gone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
stdatomic.h uses both __auto_type and __typeof__. In the cases where
__typeof__ is used, (a) const and _Atomic (and maybe volatile) must be
removed and (b)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #2 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
Since typeof is a gcc extension, there is not much arguing about it, but this
sounds wrong to me. Use cases I have, and that I seen used by others are for
example something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
By design, typeof removes qualifiers in certain cases. Currently it only
removes them from atomic types (as needed for use in stdatomic.h), but
arguably it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
Eliminating qualifiers in expressions is easy for arithmetic types at least,
something like
27 matches
Mail list logo
