search for: frowni

gcc is correct. According to the ISO specification, the for-init-statement is supposed to inject any variable names into the same declarative scope as the condition of an equivalent restructuring of the loop in the form of a while statement, which in turn fronts the declaration to an extra scope that surrounds the /entire/ loop construct. VC++ seems to be scoping the variables as if they were

Taken from tools/llvmc2/CompilationGraph.cpp: ... for (typename C::const_iterator B = EdgesContainer.begin(), E = EdgesContainer.end(); B != E; ++B) { const Edge* E = B->getPtr(); ... MS C++ compiler (VS 2008) gives: ... CompilationGraph.cpp ..\..\..\llvm\tools\llvmc2\CompilationGraph.cpp(58) : error C2371: 'E' : redefinition; different basic types

Hi all! I'm setting up C7-64 as a VM using VirtualBox, on a Windows host. as soon as I install the vbox Guest Extensions and reboot, when I log in next time I get a white screen with a frowny face that says "Oh No, Something has gone wrong!" and then "A problem has occurred, and the system can't recover, please log out and try again." Sounds like a VirtualBox problem

Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote: > gcc is correct. According to the ISO specification, the for-init-statement > is supposed to inject any variable names into the same declarative scope as > the condition of an equivalent restructuring of the loop in the form of a > while statement, which in turn fronts the declaration to an extra scope that > surrounds the /entire/ loop construct.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Jay Freeman (saurik) <saurik at saurik.com>wrote: > gcc is correct. According to the ISO specification, the for-init-statement > is supposed to inject any variable names into the same declarative scope as > the condition of an equivalent restructuring of the loop in the form of a > while statement, which in turn fronts the declaration to an extra

Ah, interesting, have not ran across that before (as I always strive to never use the same name as any scope previously), but rather interesting that GCC gets it wrong while VC++ gets it right, kind of a switch. And yes, that switch I mentioned is for VC6 style in VC7.1 (what I use), you have to switch it to make it conformant, nice to hear VC8 does it correctly by default now. On Thu, Oct 2,

Those rules only apply to if and switch statements. (Yes, this is insane, but true.) The entire section you are quoting from, 6.4, is titled "Selection statements [stmt.select]", which specifically covers these two cases. A for is an iteration statement, not a selection statement. So, if you read 6.5.3p1 (which is actually about for statements) it states that a for loop is rewritten

The Asterisk Development Team is pleased to announce the first release of DAHDI-Linux 2.6.0 and DAHDI-Tools 2.6.0. 2.6.0 is a feature release which: - Adds support for the TE820 8-span card to the wct4xxp driver. - Decrease load time of analog cards supported by the wctdm24xxp driver. - Adds sysfs object model to facilitate persistent span numbering and early loading of modules

The Asterisk Development Team is pleased to announce the first release of DAHDI-Linux 2.6.0 and DAHDI-Tools 2.6.0. 2.6.0 is a feature release which: - Adds support for the TE820 8-span card to the wct4xxp driver. - Decrease load time of analog cards supported by the wctdm24xxp driver. - Adds sysfs object model to facilitate persistent span numbering and early loading of modules