On Oct 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
So the consensus is for a dedicated option. Which one do you prefer ?
-funnamed-variadic-parameter
-fpointless-variadic-functions
-fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
I prefer
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Here is my patch with the option renamed.
Ok for trunk ?
OK with a spelling fix:
+@item -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
+Accept variadic functions without named parameters.
+
+Although it is possible to define such a function, this is
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Pedro Alves pe...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Tuesday 04 October 2011 11:16:30, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Do we need to consider ABIs that have calling conventions that
treat unprototyped and varargs functions differently? (is there any?)
Could you elaborate on
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Rupp r...@gnat.com wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:35 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
unnamed variadic functions sounds as if the function itself is
unnamed, so not good.
-funnamed-variadic-parameter
How about
-fvariadic-parameters-unnamed
there's already a
On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
patch.
I don't think it must be
On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
patch.
I
On Oct 4, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Pedro Alves pe...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a
On Tuesday 04 October 2011 11:16:30, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Do we need to consider ABIs that have calling conventions that
treat unprototyped and varargs functions differently? (is there any?)
Could you elaborate on the equivalence of these declarations?
I expected that with:
extern
On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
that the user 'imports' such a function
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:16:11PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more
generic option name,
such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?
My preference is to avoid
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
What about -fallow-fully-variadic-functions or
-fallow-very-variadic-functions ?
-fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
On 10/3/2011 1:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The language accepted by the compiler in the user's source code (as
opposed to in system headers) shouldn't depend on the target except for
certain well-defined areas such as target attributes and built-in
functions; behaving the same across different
On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:10:26 +0200
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
headers: varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:24:03 +0200
Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
I believe that such an extension is useful on other systems, even when
their ABI don't
pass the number of arguments.
The use case I would have in
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least
one extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the
system headers: varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS
because of its ABI which pass
On Sep 30, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least
one extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the
system headers: varargs without named argument.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS
favorite languages such as
Hi,
DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system headers:
varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS because of its ABI which
pass the number of arguments used.
This patch allows
23 matches
Mail list logo
