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.
Den fre. 12. feb. 2021 kl. 18.50 skrev Arthur O'Dwyer via SG14
> 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.
> SG14 mailing list
-- â¢ â â â¢/â¢ â/â¢ â¢ â/â¢ â â¢ â¢/â â¢ â¢ â¢/â¢/â â¢/â â¢ â¢/â¢ â¢/â â¢ â¢ â/â¢/â â¢/â¢ â â â¢â â¢/â â â¢/â â/â¢ â/â¢ â¢/â¢ â â¢ â¢/â¢ â â¢ â â¢ â/â â¢ â â¢/â â â/â â//
SG14 list run by email@example.com
Older Archives on Google Groups