From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>,
Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH] c/66516 - missing diagnostic on taking the address of a builtin function
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509020018410.6278@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E625DA.7080203@gmail.com>
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I also noticed uses of DECL_LANG_FLAG_4 in the definitions of
> what appear to be C-specific macros in c-family/c-common.h,
> and then uses of the same macro in definitions of a C++-specific
> macro in cp/cp-tree.h.
That seems like a bug waiting to happen, given that there is nothing
obviously C-specific about the users in common code of those macros.
> In this light it seems to me that leaving the test for the flag
> as it was would be both in keeping with existing practice and
> preferable to introducing the hook.
The existing practice you found was of use of DECL_LANG_FLAG_* in defining
macros. Not direct use in C files, which is clearly much worse. I
suppose there's the option of defining the macro in c-common.h, but
defining it in a way that includes an assertion that it's never evaluated
for C++.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-02 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-22 0:36 Martin Sebor
2015-06-22 14:11 ` Joseph Myers
2015-06-22 14:41 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-23 4:38 ` Martin Sebor
2015-06-23 10:29 ` Marek Polacek
2015-06-23 10:39 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-23 15:12 ` Martin Sebor
2015-06-29 7:37 ` Martin Sebor
2015-07-02 14:20 ` Joseph Myers
2015-07-04 22:32 ` Martin Sebor
2015-07-14 3:37 ` [PING] " Martin Sebor
2015-07-14 15:01 ` Jason Merrill
2015-07-14 15:07 ` Jason Merrill
2015-07-14 18:04 ` Martin Sebor
2015-07-29 7:27 ` Jason Merrill
2015-07-29 19:07 ` Martin Sebor
2015-08-03 23:02 ` Martin Sebor
2015-08-04 15:04 ` Jason Merrill
2015-08-04 15:58 ` Jeff Law
2015-08-04 15:19 ` Joseph Myers
2015-08-28 20:10 ` Martin Sebor
2015-08-28 20:49 ` Joseph Myers
2015-08-29 0:57 ` Martin Sebor
2015-09-01 15:01 ` Martin Sebor
2015-09-01 17:29 ` Joseph Myers
2015-09-01 22:25 ` Martin Sebor
2015-09-02 0:20 ` Joseph Myers [this message]
2015-09-02 15:29 ` Jason Merrill
2015-09-02 22:13 ` Martin Sebor
2015-09-03 14:29 ` Jason Merrill
2015-09-03 14:53 ` Joseph Myers
2015-09-03 17:30 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-09-03 18:28 ` Martin Sebor
2015-06-22 19:45 ` Marek Polacek
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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1509020018410.6278@digraph.polyomino.org.uk \
--to=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=msebor@gmail.com \
--cc=polacek@redhat.com \
/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).