From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-90562-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27043 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 01:16:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27034 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2004 01:16:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2004 01:16:23 -0000
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225])
	by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i131GNBv017101
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id <T6783a3d30a118064e13c8@mailgate1.apple.com>;
 Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:16:23 -0800
Received: from apple.com (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248])
	by relay3.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i131GF6I015816;
	Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:16:15 GMT
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:16:00 -0000
Subject: Re: Help restricting args of an intrinsic function
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>,
        Syd Polk <spolk@apple.com>, GCC List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
From: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040203003550.GA23732@nevyn.them.org>
Message-Id: <8F2CC706-55E6-11D8-A1BE-003065A77310@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2

On Monday, February 2, 2004, at 04:35 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> If you read Richard's reply, he says that will already work - in C++.  
> In C,
>
>   const int ci = 5;
>   int a1[ci];
>
> will not compile, because ci is not an integral constant-expression.

I know.  But, one of the main reasons why we are introducing builtins 
is to be able to compile code from another compiler, Code Warrior.  We 
are doing this so that users have an easy code migration.  They allow 
it.  Also, telling users that their code doesn't work in C, but works 
in C++ in this one case, is, uhm, pedantic.

Does anyone know why the above isn't supported in C?  Certainly the 
obviousness of it escapes me.  My inclination is to fix the standard, 
not the compiler.

> If Syd is trying to make that work in C/ObjC, as opposed to C++, some
> serious surgery may be involved.

I'm envisioning 6 lines of code.  I can't fathom what could possible 
require major surgery.