Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:23:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:23:26 -0500 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:50490 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:23:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:52:42 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Anuradha Ratnaweera Cc: Ulrich Drepper , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.or" Subject: Re: 2.2.18 signal.h Message-ID: <20001216145242.C25150@inspiron.random> In-Reply-To: <20001215205721.I17781@inspiron.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from anuradha@gnu.org on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +0600 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:53:50PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote: > GCC will complain the absence of a statement after `out1:out2:`, but not > two complains for `out1' and `out2', because they form a single entity. I understand the formal specs (the email from Michael is very clear). What I'm saying is that as the `dummy' statement is redoundant information but you're requiring us to put it to build a labeled-statement, you could been even more lazy and not define the labeled-statement as a statement so requiring us to put a dummy statement after every label. That would been the same kind of issue we're facing right now (but of course defining a labeled-statement as a statement and allowing recursion makes the formal specs even simpler so that probably wouldn't happen that easily). Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/