On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Nuno Lopes wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I kind of liked this idea:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00797.html
but of course it was insane.
I still think a higher level state machine as described in the
followups
is how
Hi,
I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to extend the current
__attribute__((format,..)) to use an arbitrary user callback.
I searched the mailing list archives and I found some references to similar
ideas. So do you think this is feasible?
It would allow specifying arbitrary
Nuno Lopes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to extend the current
__attribute__((format,..)) to use an arbitrary user callback.
I searched the mailing list archives and I found some references to
similar ideas. So do you think this is feasible?
I
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I kind of liked this idea:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00797.html
but of course it was insane.
I still think a higher level state machine as described in the followups
is how things should be done.
The first step (or the
I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to extend the current
__attribute__((format,..)) to use an arbitrary user callback.
I searched the mailing list archives and I found some references to
similar ideas. So do you think this is feasible?
I think it would be nice. We usually founder
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I kind of liked this idea:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00797.html
but of course it was insane.
I still think a higher level state machine as described in the followups
is how things should be done.
wouldn't that be killing a
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Nuno Lopes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to extend the current
__attribute__((format,..)) to use an arbitrary user callback.
I searched the mailing list archives and I found some references to
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Nuno Lopes wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I kind of liked this idea:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00797.html
but of course it was insane.
I still think a higher level state machine as described in the followups
is