r the usability of the language.
We are planning to write up alternative proposal without having to introduce a
new syntax to the C standard. We’ll discuss how we address problems raised
here. Please see my inlined comments.
Best,
Yeoul
> On Mar 6, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
>
Hi Kees,
> On Mar 7, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:27:49PM -0800, Yeoul Na wrote:
>> Thanks for writing up the RFC and keeping us in the loop. Are
>> you planning to add “__self.” to GCC's C++ compiler as well in
>
> Isn'
+ John & Félix & Patryk & Henrik
> On Mar 6, 2025, at 1:44 PM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Since I sent the patch series for “extend counted_by attribute to pointer
> fields of structure” two months ago, a lot of discussion were invoked both in
> GCC community and CLANG community:
>
> https:
> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:51 PM, John McCall wrote:
>
> On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:02, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> Qing pointed out in four lines of code how there are two different
>> token resolution rules being used: one which is reliant upon C's
>> current scoping rules and the other which requires a
> On Mar 12, 2025, at 3:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:28 PM Yeoul Na <mailto:yeoul...@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:51 PM, John McCall wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:02, Bill Wendling wrote:
&g
+ Aaron
> On Mar 6, 2025, at 4:27 PM, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
> Hi Qing,
>
> Thanks for writing up the RFC and keeping us in the loop. Are you planning to
> add “__self.” to GCC's C++ compiler as well in the future? The problem we
> have with “__self” being a default w
Sorry for the delay.
I’m planning on sending out our design rationale of the current approach
without the new syntax today.
- Yeoul
> On Mar 14, 2025, at 9:22 PM, John McCall wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2025, at 15:18, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, dem 14.03.2025 um 14:42 -0400 schrieb John
proposes diagnostics to mitigate potential ambiguity, and propose
new builtins that can be used as a suppression and disambiguation mechanism.
Best regards,
Yeoul
> On Mar 26, 2025, at 9:11 AM, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> I’m planning on sending out our design r
Hi Joseph,
> On Mar 26, 2025, at 12:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for all the discussions.
>>
>> I posted the design rationale for our current approach in
>> https://discourse.ll
> On Mar 28, 2025, at 5:51 AM, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>> Yeoul,
>>
>> Thanks for the writeup.
>>
>> So, basically, This writeup insisted on introducing a new “structure scope”
>
side structure without adding
> a new “structure scope" should be the best approach to resolve this issue in
> C.
>
> However, I am really hoping that the discussion can be converged soon. So, I
> am okay with adding a new “structure scope”
> If most of peo
> On Mar 26, 2025, at 1:52 PM, Yeoul Na wrote:
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
>> On Mar 26, 2025, at 12:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Yeoul Na wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the discussions.
>
> On Mar 28, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 28, 2025, at 08:51, Yeoul Na wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2025, at 9:17 AM, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeoul,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the write
13 matches
Mail list logo
