From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OSwaT-00075x-JL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:28:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1240E0D74; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EA5E0D6E for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA6A1B4054 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-3.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM=3.5] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pcu+jBtOQU6t for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5338D1B404F for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OSwa7-0007Wl-JD for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:27:51 +0200 Received: from athedsl-376750.home.otenet.gr ([79.131.23.172]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:27:51 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-376750.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:27:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:27:54 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <20100626205001.365b51cb@snowcone> <20100626195733.GF4789@nibiru.local> <20100626211254.002784d4@snowcone> <20100627104724.GC23460@nibiru.local> <20100627122258.GA8754@boostbox> <20100627171454.GA2656@boostbox> <20100627181027.GA19713@laptop> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-376750.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100626 Thunderbird/3.1 In-Reply-To: <20100627181027.GA19713@laptop> X-Archives-Salt: 2dae415e-6351-40b5-8853-1349d7e8290f X-Archives-Hash: 45ba47ca74b6811250432aaffbb359a0 On 06/27/2010 09:10 PM, dev-random@mail.ru wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:48:25PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> ... >> It is allowed. Section 7.1.1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the C++ standard: >> ... > > Not in C. > ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (aka C99), section 6.7.1, note 101: >> The implementation may treat any register declaration simply as an auto >> declaration. However, whether or not addressable storage is actually >> used, the address of any part of an object declared with storage-class >> specifier register cannot be computed, either explicitly (by use of the >> unary& operator as discussed in 6.5.3.2) or implicitly (by converting >> an array name to a pointer as discussed in 6.3.2.1). Thus, the only >> operator that can be applied to an array declared with storage-class >> specifier register is sizeof. Wasn't aware of the difference here. But anyway, the warning is issued by GCC for C++ too, not just C.