https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #5 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #0)
> >
> > I'm willing to work on a patch for this.
>
> If there still is interest in this feature are you still interest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm not sure that changing the meaning of fundamental language constructs like
declarations and writes to them in such a profound way would be viewed as a
good idea. One way to find out is to email the gcc ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #1 from Josh Triplett ---
An additional corner case: a deadfield, even one that has a default value to
allow reads of it to work rather than erroring out, must be an rvalue, so that
attempts to take the address of it fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #2 from Josh Triplett ---
One alternative implementation: if GCC supported a "property" attribute,
specifying (optional) functions to get or set the property (with compile-time
errors if attempting to get/set a property for which the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194
--- Comment #3 from Josh Triplett ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #2)
> One alternative implementation: if GCC supported a "property" attribute,
> specifying (optional) functions to get or set the property (with
> compile-time errors
