From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Subject: Re: Interrupt_Handler and "directly specified"
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:59:46 +0100
Date: 2015-11-22T10:59:46+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <n2s3j2$ckj$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <n2o34r$c1r$1@loke.gir.dk>
On 20.11.15 22:25, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> I don't know what "directly specified" in RM C.3.1 means,
>> exactly. Does it mean just specified as opposed to no
>> such aspect specified (in source, near it)? So drop "=> ..."
>> for truth?
>
> "directly specified" means explicitly given on this entity (as opposed to
> inheriting a value from some ancestor, which is considered "specified").
>
> If you leave the value off of any aspect specification, the value is True.
> (see 13.1.1(15/3)).
Thank you very much for clarifying.
The error is reported,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68481
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-22 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-20 18:33 Interrupt_Handler and "directly specified" G.B.
2015-11-20 19:22 ` Simon Wright
2015-11-20 21:25 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-11-22 9:59 ` Georg Bauhaus [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox