Le 23 juil. 2010 à 00:00, Paul Hilfinger a écrit :
Hi Paul,
>>> The Bison documentation says that due to technical differences
>>> between C
>>> and C++, a C++ compiler wouldn't be able to compile or properly
>>> execute
>>> (not clear which) a Bison C program that tried to grow the parser
>
Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> > BTW: I observe that ISO C++ has a template function
> > std::uninitialized_copy, defined in , which ought to work for
> > copying a stack properly.
>
Hans Aberg wrote:
> The algorithm is
>for (; first != last; ++result, ++first)
> new (static_cast(&*
> > That's not what this means. The 'new' operator here uses the standard
> > placement form, which does no allocation, but uses the given address
> > (result) as the pointer value, invoking the copy constructor
> > (value_type(*first)) on it. This is indeed the desired behavior.
>
> Yes,
> > The Bison documentation says that due to technical differences
> > between C
> > and C++, a C++ compiler wouldn't be able to compile or properly
> > execute
> > (not clear which) a Bison C program that tried to grow the parser
> > stack. What exactly is this technical difference?
On 23 Jul 2010, at 18:02, Paul Eggert wrote:
I recall Paul wrote the C skeleton, and one reason for not supporting
compile as C++ is that he did not want to work with C++, in
addition to being complicated somehow.
Although I contributed to the C skeleton, I am not its original
author;
I bel
On 07/23/10 01:02, Hans Aberg wrote:
> I recall Paul wrote the C skeleton, and one reason for not supporting
> compile as C++ is that he did not want to work with C++, in
> addition to being complicated somehow.
Although I contributed to the C skeleton, I am not its original author;
I believe that
On 23 Jul 2010, at 01:48, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
That's not what this means. The 'new' operator here uses the
standard
placement form, which does no allocation, but uses the given address
(result) as the pointer value, invoking the copy constructor
(value_type(*first)) on it. This is indeed t
On 23 Jul 2010, at 00:00, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
One problem is that the C stack does not call C++ copy constructors
when reallocating. So one can only use a POD semantic value.
I was indeed aware of the non-POD issue. However, this problem
already
prevents the use of %union in C++ files if
On 23 Jul 2010, at 00:58, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
BTW: I observe that ISO C++ has a template function
std::uninitialized_copy, defined in , which ought to work
for
copying a stack properly.
The algorithm is
for (; first != last; ++result, ++first)
new (static_cast(&*result))
typen
On 21 Jul 2010, at 00:03, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
The Bison documentation says that due to technical differences
between C
and C++, a C++ compiler wouldn't be able to compile or properly
execute
(not clear which) a Bison C program that tried to grow the parser
stack. What exactly is this tech
The Bison documentation says that due to technical differences between C
and C++, a C++ compiler wouldn't be able to compile or properly execute
(not clear which) a Bison C program that tried to grow the parser
stack. What exactly is this technical difference? Producing a C++
program using the C
11 matches
Mail list logo
