From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12082 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2004 04:22:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12069 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2004 04:22:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Nov 2004 04:22:21 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ4Su79026434 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.apple.com (relay1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:22:59 -0800 Received: from [17.219.204.133] (vpn2priv-133.apple.com [17.219.204.133]) by relay1.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAJ4MHus018844; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:22:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <77E8D36A-C0C2-4B03-964C-BEE0FE7BBBC3@apple.com> References: <8AD5AEEF-3914-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <78169FF3-3916-11D9-AEB4-000A95D692F4@physics.uc.edu> <4D2CF60C-3919-11D9-8BD2-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <20041117212847.A26376@synopsys.com> <6F5FC748-7BBD-44B9-8DDC-246949F16102@apple.com> <20041118102741.A8347@synopsys.com> <77E8D36A-C0C2-4B03-964C-BEE0FE7BBBC3@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <98C86CD4-39E2-11D9-B2D5-000A95BCF344@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joe Buck , Andrew Pinski , gcc mailing list From: Matt Austern Subject: Re: generalized lvalues Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:52:00 -0000 To: Mike Stump X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00668.txt.bz2 On Nov 18, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 18, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Joe Buck wrote: >> Really? > > AFAIK. > >> Can you show some of the example errors? > > Sounds boring and tedious, I don't see any benefit to doing that work. > I've accepted the extension is gone and just plan on informing users > it is gone. But I'll give two examples (details changed partly to protect the guilty and partly because I'm doing this by memory): (1) #define foo(x) *(a, b, x) (2) ((long*) p)++ Again, I'm not arguing that this extension should come back. I'm unhappy about the whole situation, because (as Joe pointed out) we had a choice between removing an extension without the usual amount of notice and the usual number of releases where it's deprecated, or else accepting a serious bug in our C++ front end and not fixing it. At the time I thought the former choice was less bad, and I think that's still probably true. But right now I'm mostly interested in collecting information. I'd like to make sure I understand all of the consequences of our decision. I'm most interested in your comment, Andrew, that cast-as-lvalue was impossible to accommodate in GIMPLE. Can you expand on that? --Matt