public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/17023] [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with nested functions in parameter declaration
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041014201241.6558.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040814001242.17023.jsm28@gcc.gnu.org>
------- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-14 20:12 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with nested functions
in parameter declaration
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk wrote:
> expressions with longjmp, statement expressions seem more reasonable there
> (though if they attempt to jump into the body of the function that might
> be problematic).
Actually, given that we disallow statement expressions in prototypes
outside a function (even where they only mean [*] and have no further
significance) perhaps it does make sense to be stricter about saying that
old-style parameter declarations don't count as inside a function for this
purpose, and disallowing statement expressions there in general. But if
we do that then we should consider if declarations of parameters to nested
functions likewise are restricted and can't include statement expressions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17023
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-14 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-14 0:12 [Bug c/17023] New: " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-14 2:19 ` [Bug c/17023] [3.3/3.4/3.5 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-14 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-08-29 18:06 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 18:08 ` [Bug c/17023] [3.3/3.4/4.0 " rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 18:25 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
2004-10-14 19:55 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 20:05 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk
2004-10-14 20:12 ` jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk [this message]
2004-10-14 21:09 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 23:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-14 23:25 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041014201241.6558.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).