On 05/13/2013 09:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
And usually I'm in that crowd as well. But in this case, we add a check
which only covers a tiny fraction of the problem. It's like bounds
checking for arrays which only fails if the index is at least twice as
large as the array length, IMHO.
The
On 05/13/2013 03:06 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
This whole feature seems rather poorly designed to me. The code size
increase due to official VLA support in C++11y might come a bit as a
surprise. But rereading N3639, there's no way around it, at least for
expressions of signed types.
I think
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 06:41 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> At the last C++ standards meeting, we agreed to add VLAs to the
>> language. But they're significantly different from GNU/C99 VLAs: you
>> can't form a pointer to a VLA, or take its sizeof,
On 05/09/2013 06:41 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
At the last C++ standards meeting, we agreed to add VLAs to the
language. But they're significantly different from GNU/C99 VLAs: you
can't form a pointer to a VLA, or take its sizeof, or really anything
other than directly use it. We also need to thr
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> At the last C++ standards meeting, we agreed to add VLAs to the language.
> But they're significantly different from GNU/C99 VLAs: you can't form a
> pointer to a VLA, or take its sizeof, or really anything other than directly
> use it. We a
