"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >> Fixing a PR introducing a regression is not a proper fix for any bug,
| >> *especially* for a bug which is not a regression itself.
| >
| > Thanks for the lecture.
| >
| > Not just because this is not
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fixing a PR introducing a regression is not a proper fix for any bug,
>> *especially* for a bug which is not a regression itself.
>
> Thanks for the lecture.
>
> Not just because this is not a regression does not mean it does not
> need fixing.
I jus
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Once I'm finished, I'll post the patch and I would probably ask you
| > help in the testing department and suggest better concrete
| > solution. That PR needs to be fixed.
|
|
| Fixing a PR introduci
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once I'm finished, I'll post the patch and I would probably ask you
> help in the testing department and suggest better concrete
> solution. That PR needs to be fixed.
Fixing a PR introducing a regression is not a proper fix for any bug,
*especially*
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > template struct X { };
| >
| >void fu(int a, X) { } // #1
|
| I gave a look to PR 17395 and you are probably right. This testcase requires
| us to build PARM_DECLs even for function decla
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> template struct X { };
>
>void fu(int a, X) { } // #1
I gave a look to PR 17395 and you are probably right. This testcase requires
us to build PARM_DECLs even for function declarations. That's really too
bad.
You should though measure me
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| | > The obvious place is on the DECL_INITIAL of the PARM_DECLs, but I
| | > don't think they exist until the function is defined.
| |
| |
| | I heard once that there was some long-term project of storing function
| | declarations (without co
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >>> In the C++ front end, default arguments are recorded in
| >>> FUNCTION_TYPEs intead of being part of the FUNCTION_DECLs. What are
| >>> the reasons for that?
| >>
| >>
| >> There used to be an extens
Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In the C++ front end, default arguments are recorded in
>>> FUNCTION_TYPEs intead of being part of the FUNCTION_DECLs. What are
>>> the reasons for that?
>>
>>
>> There used to be an extension that allowed default arguments on
>> function pointer typ
Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Assuming the extension was gone, do you see a reason we not move the
| > default arguments to FUNCTION_DECLs and have FUNCTION_TYPEs use
| > TREE_VEC instead of TREE_LIST to hold the parameter-type list?
|
| you could pro
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Assuming the extension was gone, do you see a reason we not move the
default arguments to FUNCTION_DECLs and have FUNCTION_TYPEs use
TREE_VEC instead of TREE_LIST to hold the parameter-type list?
you could probably use a VEC(tree), which I think would be even better :)
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hi,
In the C++ front end, default arguments are recorded in
FUNCTION_TYPEs intead of being part of the FUNCTION_DECLs. What are
the reasons for that?
There used to be an extension that allowed default arguments on function
pointer types. We ag
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Assuming the extension was gone, do you see a reason we not move the
> default arguments to FUNCTION_DECLs and have FUNCTION_TYPEs use
> TREE_VEC instead of TREE_LIST to hold the parameter-type list?
Both things sound OK to me.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > In the C++ front end, default arguments are recorded in
| > FUNCTION_TYPEs intead of being part of the FUNCTION_DECLs. What are
| > the reasons for that?
|
| There used to be an extension that allowed default
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the C++ front end, default arguments are recorded in
> FUNCTION_TYPEs intead of being part of the FUNCTION_DECLs. What are
> the reasons for that?
There used to be an extension that allowed default arguments on function
pointer types. We agreed to kill it,
15 matches
Mail list logo
