On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, grischka <gris...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> I'd rather let decl0() just do the c99 case and return a value >> >> Yes... I wanted to do that, but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the >> code. I thought this way was more tcc-like. > > tcc-like in how? Any evidence of analogous hacks elsewhere in the code?
I just meant leaving decl() alone and creating a decl0() so the other callsites wouldn't have to change, and I do see evidence of that sort of thing elsewhere in tcc. But that's not what you were getting at, and now I understand. >> Please feel free to change it however you see fit. > Maybe I will. I didn't want to seem ornery, I just meant that I thought I understood what you were getting at, but that I had absolutely no problem with someone else committing over top of me, and certainly you would do a better job than me of expressing your internal concept in code. Plus you obviously have more ownership than just about anyone else, so I was merely deferring to your eminence. > Until then feel free to fix incorrect variable scope ;) > [example code] Darn. Thank you. I'm doubly embarrassed now. Joe _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
