__op ? with gcc/egcs

__op ? with gcc/egcs

[Alain Magloire]

Bonjour

  Did I missed something obvious ?
  Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

g++ bar.c
bar.c:3: declaration of `operator ' as non-function
bar.c:3: confused by earlier errors, bailing out

cat -n bar.c
     1  int
     2  foo (int __op)
     3  { return __op; }
     4
     5  int
     6  main ()
     7  { foo (1); return 0; }


Thanks for all the great work.

-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on n'est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

Re: __op ? with gcc/egcs

[Joe Buck]

>   Did I missed something obvious ?
>   Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

*All* identifiers with two leading underscores are reserved to the
implementation, for any C or C++ compiler.  If you use any such names
and you aren't writing the standard C or C++ library, you're violating
the standard.  So don't do that!

g++ uses some names of this form for overloaded operators.  I'm not
sure what __op is.

Re: __op ? with gcc/egcs

[Martin von Loewis]

>   Did I missed something obvious ?

The obvious thing you miss that all names starting with two underscores,
or with one underscore followed by an uppercase letter, are reserved for
the implementation (i.e. compiler/libraries).

>   Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

The not-so-obvious thing is that g++ indeed reserves __op, and a
number of other names, to represent operator functions internally.
For example, you get a similar message with __pl.

I'm sure this restriction can be removed. I'm not so sure whether it
is worth the effort.

Hope this helps,
Martin

Re: __op ? with gcc/egcs

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

>>>>> «Martin», Martin von Loewis <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

>> Did I missed something obvious ?
Martin> The obvious thing you miss that all names starting with two underscores,
Martin> or with one underscore followed by an uppercase letter, are reserved for
Martin> the implementation (i.e. compiler/libraries).

>> Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

Martin> The not-so-obvious thing is that g++ indeed reserves __op, and a
Martin> number of other names, to represent operator functions internally.
Martin> For example, you get a similar message with __pl.

Martin> I'm sure this restriction can be removed. I'm not so sure whether it
Martin> is worth the effort.

	
The standard is perfectly clear about reserved names and identifiers
beginning with underscores. 

-- Gaby

Re: __op ? with gcc/egcs

[Ulrich Drepper]

alain@qnx.com (Alain Magloire) writes:

> Bonjour
> 
>   Did I missed something obvious ?
>   Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

Yes.

-- 
---------------.      drepper at gnu.org  ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com   `------------------------

Re: __op ? with gcc/egcs

[Mike Stump]

> To: egcs@cygnus.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:00:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Alain Magloire" <alain@qnx.com>

>   Did I missed something obvious ?

Yes.

>   Is ``__op'', a reserved word with egcs/g++ ?

From the C++ language standard:

2 In addition, identifiers containing  a  double  underscore  (  __)  or
  beginning with an underscore and an upper-case letter are reserved for
  use by C++ implementations and standard libraries  and  shall  not  be
  used otherwise; no diagnostic is required.

Don't do that.