[haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-gsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:38:07 +0200
On 2008-07-15 at 19:52:28 [+0200], Rene Gollent <anevilyak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Actually variable declarations are allowed at the beginning of every
> > block,
> > which is respected in this case. It seems that the gcc-specific __typeof()
> > feature doesn't work in C, though. Which pretty much defeats the purpose
> > of
> > using it, since for C++ I could have used an inline template function
> > instead.
>
> Not with C89, try for yourself :) It fails even without using that
> macro, just try to declare a variable someplace after having written a
> non-decl line of code.
I'm not particularly familiar with the different C versions, but I'm sure
that whatever is the default in gcc 2.95.3 (or 2.9) allows variable
declarations at the beginning of any block. I.e. "do { int v; } while
(false);" is perfectly allowed.
CU, Ingo
- References:
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Axel Dörfler
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Stephan Assmus
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Salvatore Benedetto
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Rene Gollent
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Rene Gollent
Other related posts:
- » [haiku-gsoc] Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- » [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Axel Dörfler
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Stephan Assmus
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Salvatore Benedetto
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Rene Gollent
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Ingo Weinhold
- [haiku-gsoc] Re: Xsi semaphorses: patch #1
- From: Rene Gollent