On 03/28/2011 08:13 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Please CC me on C++ questions, as I don't keep up with the mailing list
very well.
I would like to check that template literal operators have the specific
non-type parameter pack:
template
Foo operator"" sluggo();
I looked through the internals
> - Original Message -
> From: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [C++-0X] User-defined literals, gsoc
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:16:52 -0400
>
>
> On 03/29/2011 10:05 AM, Levon Haykazyan wrote:
> > Hi Ed,
&
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 10:05 AM, Levon Haykazyan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> I am working on a proposal to implement user-defined literals as a Google
>> Summer of Code project. I was unaware that someone was already working on
>>
On 03/29/2011 10:05 AM, Levon Haykazyan wrote:
Hi Ed,
I am working on a proposal to implement user-defined literals as a Google
Summer of Code project. I was unaware that someone was already working on
it. If you have already done some work, maybe it is better for me to pick
another project. Or
Hi Ed,
I am working on a proposal to implement user-defined literals as a Google
Summer of Code project. I was unaware that someone was already working on
it. If you have already done some work, maybe it is better for me to pick
another project. Or maybe you would be interested in mentoring me and
On 10/04/2010 02:16 PM, 3dw...@verizon.net wrote:
You shouldn't be able to call it as just _foo(1.2L); an operator name is
different from a normal function name.
According to 13.5.8/7 :
[ Note: literal operators and literal operator templates are usually invoked
implicitly through user-defi
Oct 4, 2010 11:26:15 AM, ja...@redhat.com wrote:
>On 09/17/2010 02:25 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> I am slowly working on user defined literals for C++-0x.
>
>Thanks! Please send future patches to gcc-patches and me directly.
>
>Looking over your patch, I see you're doing a significant amount o
On 09/17/2010 02:25 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I am slowly working on user defined literals for C++-0x.
Thanks! Please send future patches to gcc-patches and me directly.
Looking over your patch, I see you're doing a significant amount of it
in the parser, which is incorrect; the draft says
This is to get a paper trail started.
TODO: Find out if/what LTO issues there may be with user-defined literals.
Ed
On 09/21/2010 06:47 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
I'm holding out for rolling back the lexer in some way that won't break
everything and emitting the (unrecognized by cpp ) suffix as a separate
identifier token. I'm thinking the cp_lexer_* routines or maybe a new one in
parser.c would be worth try
> I'm holding out for rolling back the lexer in some way that won't break
> everything and emitting the (unrecognized by cpp ) suffix as a separate
> identifier token. I'm thinking the cp_lexer_* routines or maybe a new one in
> parser.c would be worth trying. Then the code I have now would ju
Sep 21, 2010 03:56:25 PM, rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 3. The big one: Getting the integer(long long) and float(long double)
>> suffixes that are not used by gcc out of the preprocessor. Then we
>can
>> build the calls.
>
>Just my two cents:
>Add an output parameter to the function "
> 3. The big one: Getting the integer(long long) and float(long double)
> suffixes that are not used by gcc out of the preprocessor. Then we can
> build the calls.
Just my two cents:
Add an output parameter to the function "cpp_classify_number()"
(libcpp/expr.c) to get the user-defined suffix.
It
> I'm looking at (besides input on what I've got currently):
So far I see it fine... except:
int len = TREE_STRING_LENGTH (strl);
should be:
int len = TREE_STRING_LENGTH (strl) - 1;
since the draft says "its length excluding the terminating null character".
Also, I had to c
On 09/19/2010 02:37 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Maybe Rodrigo would be interested in collaborating on this work?
Sure I am! Please, let me a couple of days to re-read the C++ draft,
and check this patch.
Also, take in account that I'm in no way a GCC expert... but I'll do my best.
Also I hav
> Maybe Rodrigo would be interested in collaborating on this work?
Sure I am! Please, let me a couple of days to re-read the C++ draft,
and check this patch.
Also, take in account that I'm in no way a GCC expert... but I'll do my best.
Also I have a little patch on my own that might use some help.
On 09/17/2010 08:25 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> Thanks for any help you can give,
Maybe Rodrigo would be interested in collaborating on this work?
Rodrigo?
Thanks,
Paolo.
17 matches
Mail list logo
