On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Mike, as Obj-C/C++ front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of Blocks
> extension implemented for Obj-C/C++ front-ends?
Sure.
Though, I'd really love a front-end extension to allow one to implement Blocks
as a pure library. :-) [ duck
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC.
I have a funny story about that one… I was just about ready to submit the
work, the GPLv3 happened. Ah… life goes on.
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:49 PM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
> What benefits does blocks have over nested functions in C and over lambas in
> C++?
The ability to compile existing code. The ability to compile code that uses
system header files on macosx. The ability to use third party libraries on
mac
On 11/04/2013 11:34 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Joseph, Richard, as C front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of
Blocks extension implemented for C front-end?
Yes. I believe the point (or one of the points) is that at least some
system headers
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:39 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > What is the status of this or similar features (eg, lambdas) in ISO C?
> > IOW, what was the feedback on the blocks part of
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1370.pdf, and
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> What is the status of this or similar features (eg, lambdas) in ISO C?
> IOW, what was the feedback on the blocks part of
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1370.pdf, and are there
> any follow-ups? IMHO, it would be preferable to suppor
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Joseph, Richard, as C front-end maintainers, would you be supportive of
> Blocks extension implemented for C front-end?
Yes. I believe the point (or one of the points) is that at least some
system headers in current Darwin require this extension (mor
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 17:28 +1300, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
>
> There are many challenges (both technical and copyright) that require work
> before a
On 04/11/13 06:18, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov
wrote:
Hi,
I am considering a project to add Apple's bl
On 11/04/2013 06:10 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Clang's blocks are more powerful than GCC's nested functions, because
blocks may be placed on the heap, and therefore returned from a
function.
And they don't need code generation at run time.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I
>>> am looking at adding blocks sup
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
>> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
>
> What benefits does blocks have
> On Nov 3, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
> looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
What benefits does blocks have over nested functions in C and over lambas in
C+
Hi,
I am considering a project to add Apple's blocks [*] extension to GCC. I am
looking at adding blocks support to C, C++ and Obj-C/C++ front-ends.
There are many challenges (both technical and copyright) that require work
before any patches are ready for review, and I would appreciate indica
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:53:04 -0400, Jason Merrill
wrote:
> On 09/24/2009 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Can the lambda (containing X) be copied and put onto a queue? What is
>> its type?
>
> As you said, the lambda has a unique anonymous type. If you want to put
> multiple lambdas into a con
On 09/24/2009 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
Can the lambda (containing X) be copied and put onto a queue? What is
its type?
As you said, the lambda has a unique anonymous type. If you want to put
multiple lambdas into a container, you can use std::function as the
element type.
Jason
On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/15/2009 12:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
The second major feature of Blocks vs c++ lambdas is that they can be
"copied onto the heap". This allows things like "Grand Central
Dispatch"
to work: you can write code that executes blocks asyn
On 09/15/2009 12:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
The second major feature of Blocks vs c++ lambdas is that they can be
"copied onto the heap". This allows things like "Grand Central Dispatch"
to work: you can write code that executes blocks asynchronously or on
other threads/work queues (after the fu
Chris Lattner wrote:
> The first difference is that every instance of a lambda gives you a
> value of a new (anonymous) type, which makes them mostly only useful
> with templates.
---
Ahh..didn't know that. That certainly would make them less useful
in a general sense. I've only been expos
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes "I'd certainly check with the FSF
> > before betting on that. "
> True, though Apple's entry in the copyright file says "assigns past and
> future changes" (I checked before the above e-mail). Certainly checking
> with the FSF is a good idea.
---
Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
>> While we are discussing apple extension, is there a list of apple
>> specific extension about C and objective compiler ?
>
> There isn't anything good, but some information is available here:
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/L
On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
True, though Apple's entry in the copyright file says "assigns past
and
future changes" (I checked before the above e-mail). Certainly
checking
with the FSF is a good idea.
Ian
While we are discussing apple extension, is there a list of appl
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:20:58 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor
wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
>>> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
>>> party.
>>
>> I'd certainly chec
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
>> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
>> party.
>
> I'd certainly check with the FSF before betting on that. ISTR that some
> copyright assig
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
> party.
I'd certainly check with the FSF before betting on that. ISTR that some
copyright assignments have a "contribution" step;
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:03:35PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
> >interesting extension...).
> >
> >This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> writes:
> In general, and this has come up before, there are other things in
> Objective-C 2.0 that we don't have. IIRC the Apple trees left behind
> are a little old and not in good shape. What are the licensing issues
> for borrowing from LLVM leaving asid
On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks
from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought i
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be l
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be largely identical to the C+
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:03:35 +0200, Tristan Gingold
wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
>> interesting extension...).
>>
>> This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
>> AFAIU th
On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
interesting extension...).
This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
AFAIU there is no reason to believe Apple will contribute patches to
implement it.
I t
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Is there even a formal spec for the language extension?
I think it's http://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockLanguageSpec.txt as that's the
one they've referred to in their white paper (wg14/n1370). It's not written
in your typical standardese as yet, though, from what I could
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Vincent R. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
> what I read) is
> also in mainline.
> What is the status about this extension ?
Hi,
The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
interesting exte
Hi,
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
Thanks
35 matches
Mail list logo
