From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12770 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2010 00:19:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12690 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2010 00:19:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BJ,TW_JC,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:19:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 9374 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2010 00:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.19.157.45?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Jun 2010 00:19:45 -0000 Message-ID: <4C23CDCA.9000508@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:14:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Remove missing_argument langhook References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg02534.txt.bz2 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > Thanks. This patch > still needs > review of the C++ piece. > >>> cp: >>> 2010-06-22 Joseph Myers >>> >>> * cp-objcp-common.h (LANG_HOOKS_MISSING_ARGUMENT): Remove. This is OK. I don't think there's any reason to be too literal-minded about requiring review by a language front-end maintainer for something like this. Your patch clearly is not making the compiler (including C++) behave worse than before, and once we're blowing away the referent of the macro blowing away the macro itself is obvious. So, I think we should all feel free to consider trivial updates to language front-ends when making a language-independent change. Of course, people should use their judgment; if this policy starts getting abused, we'll have to go back to a stricter point of view. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713