[GCC-XML] last commit

Brad King brad.king at kitware.com
Tue Jun 17 16:28:28 EDT 2008

Roman Yakovenko wrote:
> Sorry for bringing this back, but it seems that I cannot work with the
> current version, without commenting out some test cases.

Can you point me at your code and these tests please?

> For obvious
> reasons, I prefer not to do it. May I suggest some other solution?
> Few mounthes ago, I was improving my type traits functionality and
> found out that there are few use case it still misses. So I took a
> look on GCC code, trying to find functions that check whether class is
> * default constructable
> * copy constructorable
> * assignable
> GCC must define them somewhere, after all it should be able to produce
> compilation errors when such functionality is not available and the
> user uses it. The idea was to place such information as attributes on
> Class/Struct element:
> <Class ... is_default_constructable="1" is_assignable="1"
> is_copy_constructable="1">

I was also thinking of this solution when the bug this commit fixed was
originally reported.  The question is whether the information needed to
extract these traits is available and correct at the time of the dump.
Hopefully whatever is causing the strange missing-declaration behavior
will not break this solution too.

I'll add this to my to-do list but I'm about to go on vacation so I
won't get to it for a couple weeks.


More information about the gccxml mailing list