Hi!
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:44:24AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I think we should drop the reference to previous gcc versions and the
> old scheme. I don't think it helps in understanding the code.
>
> It's still necessary to set RID_LAST_MODIFIER correctly as
> declspecs_add_type uses i
l...@dm.botik.ru (Alexey I. Adamovich) writes:
> Forgot RID_LAST_MODIFIER
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 08:29:21PM +0400, Alexei I. Adamovich wrote:
>> So for the sake of those who will develop C-derived front ends, should
>> we change the comment like below:
>> > /* Reserved identifiers. This is t
Forgot RID_LAST_MODIFIER
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 08:29:21PM +0400, Alexei I. Adamovich wrote:
> So for the sake of those who will develop C-derived front ends, should
> we change the comment like below:
> > /* Reserved identifiers. This is the union of all the keywords for C,
> >C++, and Obje
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:51:30AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I suspect that that comment is no longer relevant. At least, I can't
> seem to find the mask. Perhaps somebody else knows.
I got. Since no anybody more has commented, let us be sure that the
mask mechanism has gone. [I've r
"Alexei I. Adamovich" writes:
> While modifying the C lexer to accommodate it for experimental
> C-derived language front-end, I've stumbled across the following
> comment in gcc/c-common.h before the "enum rid" definition (still
> there in gcc-4.5-20090820 snapshot):
>
> 42 /* Reserved identifie
Hi All!
While modifying the C lexer to accommodate it for experimental
C-derived language front-end, I've stumbled across the following
comment in gcc/c-common.h before the "enum rid" definition (still
there in gcc-4.5-20090820 snapshot):
42 /* Reserved identifiers. This is the union of all the
