C++ Logo

SG14

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Challenging the deprecation of volatile compound statements
From: Paul M. Bendixen (paulbendixen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-14 19:07:48


Thank you very much for the feedback, as this is the first time I've
tried this, I welcome any help.

Michael, yes I'll need a number, but 2021 02 15 seems very optimistic.

I have already put Wouter on and would like to have any input he could
provide. I am updating the proposal but haven't updated enough to put
it out again (I have added examples though and noted places where the
prose needs to be improved.

/Paul

Den fre. 12. feb. 2021 kl. 18.50 skrev Arthur O'Dwyer via SG14
<sg14_at_[hidden]>:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:44 PM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/02/2021 17.36, Arthur O'Dwyer via SG14 wrote:
>> > Again, the null hypothesis is that this never happens, and we'd have to see some concrete examples from real codebases in order to provide evidence against the null hypothesis.
>>
>> The argument was that there are plenty of C header files from
>> embedded system vendors that do this, and we want C++ to be
>> compatible in this regard.
>>
>> I hope we can quote from such header files without much effort.
>
>
> Right, but the null hypothesis is that this never happens, and we'd have to [quote from such header files] in order to provide evidence against the null hypothesis.
> If that's easy, then awesome: let's see it in the paper.
>
> –Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> SG14 mailing list
> SG14_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14

-- 
• − − •/• −/• • −/• − • •/− • • •/•/− •/− • •/• •/− • • −/•/− •/• − −
•− •/− − •/− −/• −/• •/• − • •/• − • − • −/− • − •/− − −/− −//

SG14 list run by sg14-owner@lists.isocpp.org

Older Archives on Google Groups