From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "E. Robert Tisdale" To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Named Return Value Extension Proposal Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <36F70516.61EE0909@netwood.net> References: <199903230257.SAA18712@kankakee.wrs.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00734.html Mike Stump wrote: > Sounds great, but I missed the proof where you showed > the compiler can't figure this out for itself. :-( > I instead favor having the compile do the hard work, > and not require having the user try and code > in something besides ANSI C++ in this case. It can! But the compiler must have already read the return statement before it emits the code to construct x which is something that the egcs compiler does not do. E. Robert Tisdale From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "E. Robert Tisdale" To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Named Return Value Extension Proposal Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <36F70516.61EE0909@netwood.net> References: <199903230257.SAA18712@kankakee.wrs.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00739.html Message-ID: <19990331234600.4X773ryhvGfnpefljJQgpwx5J79iHvJFwksxVq5i_xQ@z> Mike Stump wrote: > Sounds great, but I missed the proof where you showed > the compiler can't figure this out for itself. :-( > I instead favor having the compile do the hard work, > and not require having the user try and code > in something besides ANSI C++ in this case. It can! But the compiler must have already read the return statement before it emits the code to construct x which is something that the egcs compiler does not do. E. Robert Tisdale