On 18 December 2012 20:11, Johannes Pfau nos...@example.com wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:06:16 +0100
schrieb jerro a...@a.com:
You could also define them in compiler
specific modules as has already been discussed in this thread,
but then code that used them without full names (including
Am Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:28:51 +
schrieb Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com:
Someone recently mentioned @gccAttribute(foo, bar); as a
prototype.
That looks like a good solution. And it should be much simpler to
implement than my proposal.
Now that UDA's have extended their support to @attribute
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/0814f9decfdbcef644c4e89b02b8be192ed2e900
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
maintainers to implement their own compiler-specific predefined
attributes?
On 18 December 2012 15:19, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Potentially this can now be re-written as.
void die() @noreturn
{
abort();
}
By the way, this would be the first time that @noreturn has been brought up.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/i9p9li$282u$1...@digitalmars.com
On 18 December 2012 15:24, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 18 December 2012 15:19, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Potentially this can now be re-written as.
void die() @noreturn
{
abort();
}
By the way, this would be the first time that @noreturn has been brought
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
maintainers to implement their own compiler-specific predefined
attributes?
I think it'd be great if we used magical full names, but
otherwise it is the same as the
On 18 December 2012 15:29, Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler maintainers to
implement their own compiler-specific predefined attributes?
I think it'd be
Iain Buclaw:
Where GDC has the following to allow developers to mark
functions with the backend attribute 'noreturn'.
pragma(attribute, noreturn)
void die()
{
abort();
}
Potentially this can now be re-written as.
void die() @noreturn
{
abort();
}
Would you guys stand for such a
On 12/18/2012 7:48 AM, bearophile wrote:
Is this name clashing acceptable?
Yes.
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
maintainers to implement their own compiler-specific predefined
attributes?
Please, no!
Suppose GDC implements @noreturn (or whatever other attribute)
Later, LDC
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:43:53 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
maintainers to implement their own compiler-specific
predefined attributes?
Please, no!
Before
On 18 December 2012 16:43, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler maintainers to
implement their own compiler-specific predefined attributes?
Please, no!
On 18 December 2012 16:58, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 18 December 2012 16:43, Peter Alexander
peter.alexander...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler maintainers to
implement
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:58:32 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Provide a situation where @noreturn attribute would mean
anything other
than telling the compiler to assume that the function cannot
return, and I
might please you on *that* particular attribute.
On *that* particular attribute,
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:47:37 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:43:53 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw
wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
maintainers to implement their own
On *that* particular attribute, I will accept that there isn't
much you could do differently from a theoretical standardised
version. The problem is, as soon as you add one compiler
specific attribute, it will be used as a precedence for adding
others.
You could just name compiler specific
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 19:08:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:47:37 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 16:43:53 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw
wrote:
Should we take this as an
Am Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:06:16 +0100
schrieb jerro a...@a.com:
You could also define them in compiler
specific modules as has already been discussed in this thread,
but then code that used them without full names (including the
module name) would break if an attribute with the same name was
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 19:23:18 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
I think this should be advertised that such a feature is in
some GDC's specific module, and that it can clash with any
library symbol at any time, as it is not a standardized
feature of the language.
Doesn't matter
On 18 December 2012 19:23, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.comwrote:
I think this should be advertised that such a feature is in some GDC's
specific module, and that it can clash with any library symbol at any time,
as it is not a standardized feature of the language.
Doesn't
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 20:27:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Many other programming languages aren't as conservative as C++.
I thing the key point here is to have a tool to handle the
refactoring automatically. It seems way easier to provide such
a tool in D than in C++.
I think it's quite
On 12/18/12 11:58 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 18 December 2012 16:43, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com
mailto:peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler
On 12/18/12 21:33, Iain Buclaw wrote:
b) No one infact uses GDC (go figure!).
Similarly, no one has noticed that most of the pragma GDC supported have
mysterious vanished either. The ones left at kept only for gcc.builtins
support until a time I re-implement the attributes in a better way
On 18 December 2012 21:31, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 12/18/12 11:58 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 18 December 2012 16:43, Peter Alexander peter.alexander...@gmail.com
mailto:peter.alexander.au@**gmail.com peter.alexander...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18
On 18 December 2012 21:36, Artur Skawina art.08...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/18/12 21:33, Iain Buclaw wrote:
b) No one infact uses GDC (go figure!).
Similarly, no one has noticed that most of the pragma GDC supported have
mysterious vanished either. The ones left at kept only for
On 18 December 2012 22:23, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com wrote:
pushing out things that can't be done in any other way into gcc-proper.
One example of this are version identifiers specific to target
architectures. Where I suggested each target D is ported to should define
it's own
On 2012-11-18 21:12, Johannes Pfau nos...@example.com wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:06:16 +0100
schrieb jerro a...@a.com:
You could also define them in compiler
specific modules as has already been discussed in this thread,
but then code that used them without full names (including the
module
27 matches
Mail list logo
