Subject: Re: Challenging the deprecation of volatile compound statements
From: Arthur O'Dwyer (arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-17 19:56:58
I'd like to see more examples, but yes, that 1 example is much better than
the previous zero!
Please add this small diff to your proposed wording (as I said in an
earlier email in this thread):
A simple *An* assignment whose left operand is of a volatile-qualified type
is deprecated ([depr.volatile.type]
<http://eel.is/c++draft/depr.volatile.type>) unless the (possibly
parenthesized) assignment is a discarded-value expression or an unevaluated
Or, if you don't want to do this, please explain your reasoning in (a new
section of) the paper.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:36 PM Paul M. Bendixen via SG14 <
> So I've tried to incorporate the feedback given.
> I know I can have a tendency to ramble a bit in text so if the
> proposal is still not clear enough, please let me know.
> I've added a single example of usage in a library "from the wild", if
> further examples are required, I would like to know were they might
> I haven't added the "what do we expect from atomicity of compound
> expressions" section, as I frankly do no know what to expect other
> than it not breaking the hal that is often times _more_ important than
> the standard library.
> I'm still looking for any feedback this group may have.
> Den man. 15. feb. 2021 kl. 02.07 skrev Paul M. Bendixen
> > 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]>
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > âArthur
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SG14 mailing list
> > > SG14_at_[hidden]
> > > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
> > --
> > 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//
> 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 mailing list
SG14 list run by email@example.com
Older Archives on Google Groups