On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Here is my patch with the option renamed.
>
> Ok for trunk ?
OK with a spelling fix:
> +@item -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
> +Accept variadic functions without named parameters.
> +
> +Although it is possible to define such a function, th
On Oct 6, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> So the consensus is for a dedicated option. Which one do you prefer ?
>>
>> -funnamed-variadic-parameter
>> -fpointless-variadic-functions
>> -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
>
> I pre
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> So the consensus is for a dedicated option. Which one do you prefer ?
>
> -funnamed-variadic-parameter
> -fpointless-variadic-functions
> -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
I prefer -fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions.
--
Joseph S. Myers
On Oct 3, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
>
>> On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
patch.
I
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Rupp wrote:
> On 10/3/2011 8:35 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> "unnamed variadic functions" sounds as if the function itself is
>> unnamed, so not good.
>>
>>
>> -funnamed-variadic-parameter
>
> How about
> -fvariadic-parameters-unnamed
>
> there's alread
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 October 2011 11:16:30, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> > Do we need to consider ABIs that have calling conventions that
>> > treat unprototyped and varargs functions differently? (is there any?)
>>
>> Could you elaborate on the equiva
On 10/3/2011 8:35 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"unnamed variadic functions" sounds as if the function itself is
unnamed, so not good.
-funnamed-variadic-parameter
How about
-fvariadic-parameters-unnamed
there's already a -fvariadic-macros, so maybe putting variadic first is
more consistent?
On Tuesday 04 October 2011 11:16:30, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Do we need to consider ABIs that have calling conventions that
> > treat unprototyped and varargs functions differently? (is there any?)
>
> Could you elaborate on the equivalence of these declarations?
I expected that with:
ext
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
>>
>> > On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If you prefer a target
On Oct 4, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> If you prefer a target hook, I'
On Monday 03 October 2011 21:23:43, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
>
> > On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
> > > > pat
On 10/3/2011 1:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The language accepted by the compiler in the user's source code (as
opposed to in system headers) shouldn't depend on the target except for
certain well-defined areas such as target attributes and built-in
functions; behaving the same across different
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Douglas Rupp wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> >
> > > If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a
> > > patch.
> > >
> > > I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, a
On 9/30/2011 8:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>>> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
>>>
>>> I don't think it must be restricted to system
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> What about -fallow-fully-variadic-functions or
> -fallow-very-variadic-functions ?
-fallow-parameterless-variadic-functions
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for so
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:16:11PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> Is it ok with this option name (-fdecc-extensions) or do you prefer a more
> generic option name,
> such as -fallow-unnamed-variadic-functions ?
My preference is to avoi
On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
>>
>> I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
>> that the user 'imports' such a f
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> If you prefer a target hook, I'm fine with that. I will write such a patch.
>
> I don't think it must be restricted to system headers, as it is possible
> that the user 'imports' such a function (and define it in one of VMS
> favorite languages suc
On Sep 30, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least
>> one extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the
>> system headers: varargs without name
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least
> one extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the
> system headers: varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS
> because of its ABI which
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:24:03 +0200
Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > I believe that such an extension is useful on other systems, even when
> > their ABI don't
> > pass the number of arguments.
> >
> > The use case I would have in mind is w
On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
>> extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
>> headers: varargs
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
> extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
> headers: varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS because of
> it
On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:10:26 +0200
> Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
>> extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
>> headers
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:10:26 +0200
Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DEC-C, the DEC compiler provided on VMS, has added to ANSI-C at least one
> extension that is difficult to work-around as it is used in the system
> headers: varargs without named argument. It makes sense on VMS because of
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
