Question on building a variably modified type at parameter scope

2013-03-05 Thread YU Chenkan
HI, I'm a newbie and I'm trying to modify the front end to extend C. I know the following code can be accepted, void f (struct S { int a; } s, int a[][s.a]) { } . I'm wondering whether it is possible to build a structure which has a variably modified array whose size depends on an other

Re: Question on building a variably modified type at parameter scope

2013-03-05 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:49 AM, YU Chenkan wrote: > > I'm a newbie and I'm trying to modify the front end to extend C. > > I know the following code can be accepted, > > void f (struct S { int a; } s, int a[][s.a]) { } . > > I'm wondering whether it is possible to build a structure which h

Re: Question on building a variably modified type at parameter scope

2013-03-05 Thread Richard Kenner
> I believe this should be possible. I believe that Ada has constructs > like this. I think you will need to use a PLACEHOLDER_EXPR to get the > right thing to happen. Yes, that's correct.

Re: Question on building a variably modified type at parameter scope

2013-03-05 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I believe this should be possible. I believe that Ada has constructs > like this. I think you will need to use a PLACEHOLDER_EXPR to get the > right thing to happen. In Ada, we indeed have the mechanism in its full generality, i.e. struct S { int a; int b[a]; }; will work anywhere, and for

Gcc-4.8 (20130217) dealing with bugfixes in isl

2013-03-05 Thread koala01
Hello, I'm trying to compile the gcc-4.8.0-20130217 snapshot with (eg) the last version of isl. This version has a bug fix which make that isl_version() returns "isl-1.11.1", as result that configure script fails to detect isl because it try to compile a code like int main () { printf("%s",

Re: Default -fabi-version=0 for 4.9

2013-03-05 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 3/4/13, Jason Merrill wrote: > Our policy on mangling bugs has been that we don't change > the mangling unless users explicitly specify -fabi-version. > Over time, this means that quite a few bugs have been found but > continue to accumulate. Most of these are C++11-specific, which > means tha

Re: Default -fabi-version=0 for 4.9

2013-03-05 Thread Jason Merrill
On 03/05/2013 02:28 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: Are you planning for C++11 ABI stability in 4.9? Yes. But if mangling bugs are discovered after 4.9, I propose to just fix them (as I believe EDG and Clang do) rather than hold them in reserve as we have been doing. Jason

Re: Default -fabi-version=0 for 4.9

2013-03-05 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 03/05/2013 02:28 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> >> Are you planning for C++11 ABI stability in 4.9? > > > Yes. But if mangling bugs are discovered after 4.9, I propose to just fix > them (as I believe EDG and Clang do) rather than hold them

VAMOS MAL

2013-03-05 Thread Ana Vilma de Escobar
No hay forma de ocultar lo que a todas luces se ve. El partido ARENA se conduce con el hígado en medio de revanchismo, prepotencia y descalificación. De: osantamaria...@hotmail.com Para: < Norman-privado > Cc: Fecha: Dom. 3 de marzo 19:37:15 -0600 Asunto: Instrucciones Los espero a ambos pa

filling delay slots with branches

2013-03-05 Thread Alan Lehotsky
Am I correct in my understanding that you can't put a branch instruction in the delay slot of a branch instruction? Semantically, the HW I'm looking at annuls the branch in the delay slot if the first branch is taken, but any other instructions are not annulled; but it appears that there's no w

Re: Gcc-4.8 (20130217) dealing with bugfixes in isl

2013-03-05 Thread Shakthi Kannan
Hi, --- On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, koala01 wrote: | This version has a bug fix which make that isl_version() returns | "isl-1.11.1", as result that configure script fails to detect isl \-- Perhaps build gcc with the following? $ ../configure --disable-isl-version-check SK -- Shakthi