(I wrote:)
Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
containing struct as a whole?
No takers?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:34:04 -0400
From: DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com
Should be the same as before, I would think.
Primarily I want them similarly defined. I wasn't
Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
containing struct as a whole?
I hadn't considered those cases (when would you want to copy a
*peripheral* ?) Should be the same as before, I would think.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:34:04AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
containing struct as a whole?
I hadn't considered those cases (when would you want to copy a
*peripheral* ?) Should be the same as before, I would think.
Not the
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:53:31 -0400
From: Daniel Jacobowitz d...@codesourcery.com
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:34:04AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
containing struct as a whole?
I hadn't considered those cases (when would you
From: DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:53:54 -0400
A bit of thread hijacking (moving it to gcc@) I'm afraid, but
it's too related to pass up on the opportunity...
Index: gcc/doc/invoke.texi
===
---
