On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:11 AM Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2019 14:51:38 CET J Decker wrote:
> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
> >
> > In C, there are two operat
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:03 PM J Decker wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM J Decker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> * J. Decker:
>>>
>>> > Here's
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:59 AM J Decker wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * J. Decker:
>>
>> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
>> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:53 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * J. Decker:
>
> > Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
> >
> > In C, there are two operators . and -> used to access member
s...
}
int main( void ) {
f();
return 0;
}
```
I haven't built the testsuite...
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:51 AM J Decker wrote:
> Here's the gist of what I would propose...
> https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
>
> In C, there are two opera
Here's the gist of what I would propose...
https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da
In C, there are two operators . and -> used to access members of struct and
union types. These operators are specified such that they are always paired
in usage; for example, if the left hand
Somewhat like assembly meets c99 /javascript with maybe an extended
preprocessor macro system (#declr? )
pointers rarely contain a single value, they either reference an array, or
a group of values. In the case of the latter, the pointerVarName.FieldName
pair specifies to get the value, and then
It's nice that GCC has included a constructor attribute, but it
doesn't work in complex scenarios.
I was considering tinkering with adding a 'initializer' and '?exiter'
or maybe 'deinitializer'? (not sure what to name the other side) But
on to the primary...
__attribute((initializer(priority)))
comparison.
unsigned int x;
int y;
if ((int)x y)
-Rick
-Original message-
From: J Decker d3c...@gmail.com
To: Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Mon, Sep 27, 2010 05:51:56 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: signed/unsigned comparison warning level
The standards did
Can the severity of signed/unsigned comparisons be raised, since GCC
does not properly handle the comparisons.
Every example below is false compiled with gcc 4.5.0
int main()
{
int s = -2;
unsigned int u = 0xFFFDU;
if( s u )
printf( okay\n );
The standards did not leave this open. They define precisely what is
supposed to happen.
Really? I'll have to drop this whole lobbying effort then. That
makes me sad that they didn't define it to be comparing of the numbers
where there are overlaps in signed and unsigned instead of causing
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:15 PM, ir_idjit ren_zokuke...@hotmail.com wrote:
i've been writing bits of codes where it requires to have an array or
pointers to functions, so the decision of which function to execute is
indexed... (i know, a lot of you will say well, that's a VERY specific of a
Just out of curiosity - isn't this what C# does with objects? would
it perhaps be something like that in how mcs (mono) builds objects and
tracks their lifespan?
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I am not sure that is easily feasible. I would believe
This is the code.
--
#define PointerA struct a *
void f( PointerA );
typedef struct a * PA;
struct a { int x; };
void f( PA a )
{
}
-
This is the output
warning: 'struct a' declared inside parameter list
warning: its scope is
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote:
--
#define PointerA struct a *
void f( PointerA );
typedef struct a * PA;
struct a { int x; };
void f( PA
, 2010 at 5:21 PM, J Decker d3c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote:
--
#define PointerA struct a *
void f( PointerA );
typedef struct a * PA;
struct a { int x
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/2010 01:31, J Decker wrote:
Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning...
typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition;
and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how?
No, that would be bad coding
17 matches
Mail list logo
