Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Sam Lantinga]

> I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

> I and the folks at Lokigames.com would dearly love to be able to 
> port games from Win32 to Linux more easily.  This is
> complicated by all the Microsoft-isms that won't compile
> under gcc.  The more source code from the Windows world
> you can compile under gcc, the better, in my book.

FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
with anonymous structures and so forth.

Kudos to everyone who has been working on GCC. :)

	-Sam Lantinga				(slouken@devolution.com)

Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
--
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature"
						 -- Rich Kulawiec 

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Mumit Khan]

Sam Lantinga <slouken@devolution.com> writes:
> 
> FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
> into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
> with anonymous structures and so forth.
> 

If you're referring to C++ anon aggregates, it's Jason's and it has
been in the "mainline" for a while now, though not in the release
branch. If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)

I've incorporated both of these in the gcc-2.95 binaries I distribute
for windows32 however, and it's easy enough to get these out of my
patchset available from:
ftp://ftp.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu-win32/cygwin/gcc-2.95/patches/

The patches of interest are:

C anon aggregates:
gcc-2.95-anon-struct-union.diff	....... Anonymous structs/unions in C.

C++ anon structs:
gcc-2.95-c++-tidy.diff ................ Jason's C++ "tidying" patch.
                                        Prereq for all other C++ patches.
gcc-2.95-c++-anon-struct.diff   ....... Anonymous structs in C++.
gcc-2.95-c++-anon-struct2.diff  .......   small tweak.

As usual, unsupported in every way imaginable.

Regards,
Mumit

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Mumit Khan]

Sam Lantinga <slouken@devolution.com> writes:
> 
> FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
> into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
> with anonymous structures and so forth.
> 

If you're referring to C++ anon aggregates, it's Jason's and it has
been in the "mainline" for a while now, though not in the release
branch. If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)

I've incorporated both of these in the gcc-2.95 binaries I distribute
for windows32 however, and it's easy enough to get these out of my
patchset available from:
ftp://ftp.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu-win32/cygwin/gcc-2.95/patches/

The patches of interest are:

C anon aggregates:
gcc-2.95-anon-struct-union.diff	....... Anonymous structs/unions in C.

C++ anon structs:
gcc-2.95-c++-tidy.diff ................ Jason's C++ "tidying" patch.
                                        Prereq for all other C++ patches.
gcc-2.95-c++-anon-struct.diff   ....... Anonymous structs in C++.
gcc-2.95-c++-anon-struct2.diff  .......   small tweak.

As usual, unsupported in every way imaginable.

Regards,
Mumit

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Sam Lantinga]

> I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

> I and the folks at Lokigames.com would dearly love to be able to 
> port games from Win32 to Linux more easily.  This is
> complicated by all the Microsoft-isms that won't compile
> under gcc.  The more source code from the Windows world
> you can compile under gcc, the better, in my book.

FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
with anonymous structures and so forth.

Kudos to everyone who has been working on GCC. :)

	-Sam Lantinga				(slouken@devolution.com)

Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
--
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature"
						 -- Rich Kulawiec 

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <199909010313.WAA18456@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu>you write:
  > Sam Lantinga <slouken@devolution.com> writes:
  > > 
  > > FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
  > > into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
  > > with anonymous structures and so forth.
  > > 
  > 
  > If you're referring to C++ anon aggregates, it's Jason's and it has
  > been in the "mainline" for a while now, though not in the release
  > branch. If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
  > not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
  > at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
  > initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)
Thanks for clarifying.  I've been meaning to ask what the status of anon
aggregates was so that I could either zap the patch from my queue or bug
on the C folks to review it.

jeff

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Gavin Romig-Koch]

 >   > If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
 >   > not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
 >   > at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
 >   > initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)
 > Thanks for clarifying.  I've been meaning to ask what the status of anon
 > aggregates was so that I could either zap the patch from my queue or bug
 > on the C folks to review it.

 > C anon aggregates:
 > gcc-2.95-anon-struct-union.diff	....... Anonymous structs/unions in C.

Looks like I've dropped this patch from my list, for which I apologize.
I'll look at this as soon as I can.

                                              -gavin...

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <199909010313.WAA18456@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu>you write:
  > Sam Lantinga <slouken@devolution.com> writes:
  > > 
  > > FYI, the new patches from Mumit Khan, which appear to be integrated
  > > into the latest CVS version of gcc/egcs, solve many of our problems
  > > with anonymous structures and so forth.
  > > 
  > 
  > If you're referring to C++ anon aggregates, it's Jason's and it has
  > been in the "mainline" for a while now, though not in the release
  > branch. If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
  > not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
  > at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
  > initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)
Thanks for clarifying.  I've been meaning to ask what the status of anon
aggregates was so that I could either zap the patch from my queue or bug
on the C folks to review it.

jeff

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Gavin Romig-Koch]

 >   > If you're referring to C anon aggregates, my patch is certainly
 >   > not integrated; in fact, I don't believe maintainers have yet looked
 >   > at it, and I have yet to see any feedback (other than Richard Henderson's
 >   > initial "Yuk!" reaction to one of the "features" ;-)
 > Thanks for clarifying.  I've been meaning to ask what the status of anon
 > aggregates was so that I could either zap the patch from my queue or bug
 > on the C folks to review it.

 > C anon aggregates:
 > gcc-2.95-anon-struct-union.diff	....... Anonymous structs/unions in C.

Looks like I've dropped this patch from my list, for which I apologize.
I'll look at this as soon as I can.

                                              -gavin...

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Joe Buck]

> I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

Anonymous unions are standard C++ and are supported by GCC.  However, MFC
does use some non-standard features of MSVC.

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Dan Kegel]

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> > Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.
> 
> Anonymous unions are standard C++ and are supported by GCC.  However, MFC
> does use some non-standard features of MSVC.

I'm referring to C, not C++.  GCC still refuses to accept anonymous 
unions in C programs.  Visual C accepts them happily.  It's not
acceptable to compile the C programs as C++.

If you can tell me what compiler option to give gcc to
get it to accept anonymous unions in C, I'll gladly eat
my hat.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
(The above is my opinion alone, and not that of my employer)

Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Dan Kegel]

I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

I and the folks at Lokigames.com would dearly love to be able to 
port games from Win32 to Linux more easily.  This is
complicated by all the Microsoft-isms that won't compile
under gcc.  The more source code from the Windows world
you can compile under gcc, the better, in my book.

Thanks,
and thanks for a great compiler,
Dan
-- 
(The above is my opinion alone, and not that of my employer)

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Dan Kegel]

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> > Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.
> 
> Anonymous unions are standard C++ and are supported by GCC.  However, MFC
> does use some non-standard features of MSVC.

I'm referring to C, not C++.  GCC still refuses to accept anonymous 
unions in C programs.  Visual C accepts them happily.  It's not
acceptable to compile the C programs as C++.

If you can tell me what compiler option to give gcc to
get it to accept anonymous unions in C, I'll gladly eat
my hat.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
(The above is my opinion alone, and not that of my employer)

Re: Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Joe Buck]

> I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
> Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

Anonymous unions are standard C++ and are supported by GCC.  However, MFC
does use some non-standard features of MSVC.

Regarding anonymous unions, etc.

[Dan Kegel]

I hear the GCC team is soliciting input as to how important
Microsoft C++ extensions like anonymous unions, etc. are.

I and the folks at Lokigames.com would dearly love to be able to 
port games from Win32 to Linux more easily.  This is
complicated by all the Microsoft-isms that won't compile
under gcc.  The more source code from the Windows world
you can compile under gcc, the better, in my book.

Thanks,
and thanks for a great compiler,
Dan
-- 
(The above is my opinion alone, and not that of my employer)