On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:26 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/03/14 18:26, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
> You can tell the compiler about the likely paths:
>
> struct option_float inverse(int x) {
> if (__builtin_expect(x != 0, 1)) {
> return (struct opt
ome others. Still, some syntaxes are good and some not. If we can
improve GNU C's syntax to be shorter, but without loss of
expressiveness or clarity, then why not!
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 03:09 PM, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
>> Regarding C+
ar 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:27:06PM +0100, Shahbaz Youssefi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> First, let me say that I'm not subscribed to the mailing list, so
>> please CC myself when responding.
>>
>> This pos
n registers
both for speed and compatibility and let the compiler generate the
repetitive/ugly error-checking code. Other than that, I personally
don't have any attachments to the particular way it's embedded in the
grammar of GNU C.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
> O
Hi,
First, let me say that I'm not subscribed to the mailing list, so
please CC myself when responding.
This post is to discuss a possible extension to the GNU C language.
Note that this is still an idea and not refined.
Background
==
In C, the following code structure is ubiquitous:
