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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-41586-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
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 <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane.org>)
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 <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; 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 <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:27:51 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:27:54 +0300
Organization: Lucas Barks
Message-ID: <i0856s$6ae$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <20100626205001.365b51cb@snowcone> <20100626195733.GF4789@nibiru.local> <20100626211254.002784d4@snowcone> <i06ouu$eos$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100627104724.GC23460@nibiru.local> <i07e9t$356$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100627122258.GA8754@boostbox> <i07o8g$ug0$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100627171454.GA2656@boostbox> <i082ss$v2j$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100627181027.GA19713@laptop>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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.