From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8905 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 20:47:38 -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 8884 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 20:47:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 20:47:38 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fARKlbu17291 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:47:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:47:37 -0800 Received: from [17.202.44.152] (ira6.apple.com [17.202.44.152]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fARKlaH08863; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:47:36 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ira@mail.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <339DE634-E2DE-11D5-A770-0030658361CA@apple.com> <3C033117.F8EDD78A@apple.com> <1006872445.5178.0.camel@litecycle.cc.andrews.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:28:00 -0000 To: Geoff Keating From: Ira Ruben Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00875.txt.bz2 At 12:10 PM -0800 11/27/01, Geoff Keating wrote: >Ira Ruben writes: > >> At 8:47 AM -0600 11/27/01, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> >> > couldn't tolerate "vector" being a macro that expanded to __vector >> > >> >uhhh, that's exactly what i'm going to do for gcc. it's either that or >> >keep a separate set of patches. >> >> And if someone is trying to use stl's class vector then what happens? > >It won't work. There's little or nothing that can be done about that; >it wouldn't work even if 'vector' was a keyword. That was a rhetorical question! It was precisely that reason why 'vector' was made a context sensitive type id and not a unconditional keyword. Doing it that way allowed it to be used in that type context while still allowing class vector to work or the use of 'vector' in any other way. Ira From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ira Ruben To: Geoff Keating Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Target-specific Front-Ends? (Was: front end changes for altivec) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <339DE634-E2DE-11D5-A770-0030658361CA@apple.com> <3C033117.F8EDD78A@apple.com> <1006872445.5178.0.camel@litecycle.cc.andrews.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01376.html Message-ID: <20011127124700.wvi10e2yCbc1VQHqEx66IM2f1AFWj7-7CSv8bW14hTg@z> At 12:10 PM -0800 11/27/01, Geoff Keating wrote: >Ira Ruben writes: > >> At 8:47 AM -0600 11/27/01, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> >> > couldn't tolerate "vector" being a macro that expanded to __vector >> > >> >uhhh, that's exactly what i'm going to do for gcc. it's either that or >> >keep a separate set of patches. >> >> And if someone is trying to use stl's class vector then what happens? > >It won't work. There's little or nothing that can be done about that; >it wouldn't work even if 'vector' was a keyword. That was a rhetorical question! It was precisely that reason why 'vector' was made a context sensitive type id and not a unconditional keyword. Doing it that way allowed it to be used in that type context while still allowing class vector to work or the use of 'vector' in any other way. Ira