On 9/21/23 07:28, waffl3x wrote:
This seems like a reasonable place for it since 'this' is supposed to
precede the decl-specifiers, and since we are parsing initial attributes
here rather than in the caller. You will want to give an error if
found_decl_spec is set. And elsewhere complain about
> This seems like a reasonable place for it since 'this' is supposed to
> precede the decl-specifiers, and since we are parsing initial attributes
> here rather than in the caller. You will want to give an error if
> found_decl_spec is set. And elsewhere complain about 'this' on
> parameters after
On 9/19/23 20:30, waffl3x wrote:
Thank you, this is great!
Thanks!
One legal hurdle to start with: our DCO policy
(https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html) requires real names in the sign-off, not
pseudonyms. If you would prefer to contribute under this pseudonym, I
encourage you to file a copyright
> Thank you, this is great!
Thanks!
> One legal hurdle to start with: our DCO policy
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html) requires real names in the sign-off, not
> pseudonyms. If you would prefer to contribute under this pseudonym, I
> encourage you to file a copyright assignment with the FSF, who
On 9/11/23 09:49, waffl3x via Gcc-patches wrote:
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
Hopefully I fixed all the issues. I also took the opportunity to remove the
small mistake present in v1, so that is no longer a concern.
Thanks again for all the patience.
-Alex
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
Hopefully I fixed all the issues. I also took the opportunity to remove the
small mistake present in v1, so that is no longer a concern.
Thanks again for all the patience.
-AlexFrom 0db52146880faf20e7a7b786dad47c686a5f26d6 Mon Sep 17
