Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C++ defines a notion of class name for linkage purpose -- that is a
notion used to define the One Definition Rule.
In general the TYPE_NAME of TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is the class name for
linkage purpose.
The behaviour you reported on implements the rule 7.1.3/5:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C++ defines a notion of class name for linkage purpose -- that is a
notion used to define the One Definition Rule.
In general the TYPE_NAME of TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT is the class name for
linkage purpose.
The behaviour you reported on implements the rule 7.1.3/5:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Again C has different rules from C++.
In C, the following two TUs combined together are still valid code while in
C++,
they are invalid.
tu1.c:
struct a
{
int t;
};
void f(struct a);
cut -
tu2.c:
typedef struct
{
On Nov 27, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
As a result of C types not having a class name for linkage
purposes, I
am finding it difficult to define a normalised string
Trivially, you can construct the name by composing one based upon the
structure. The is_compatible function then
Hi all,
I have just come across a small difference in the way the C an C++ front
ends handle anonymous struct types which is causing me some grief. In
particular the following code:
typedef struct
{
int b1;
int b2;
} Blah;
void Function(Blah* b) {}
When i get the Blah type in the
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 12:02 +1100, Brendon Costa wrote:
And apply the TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT on Another, C++ returns Blah and C
again returns the anonymous RECORD_TYPE. In my situation this is causing
some grief as i need a consistent name for the main varient type across
translation units.
C
Brendon Costa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Hi all,
|
| I have just come across a small difference in the way the C an C++
| front ends handle anonymous struct types which is causing me some
| grief. In particular the following code:
|
| typedef struct
| {
| int b1;
| int b2;
| } Blah;
|
