VLA conformance fix 4336222

Fri Jun 16 23:58:00 GMT 2006

On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> You need to, at least, change the comment which says what 
> variably_modified_type_p means

:-) Yes, ok.

> Joseph's comment about how other languages might be depending on 
> the current definition is valid; but maybe there aren't any. (You 
> should look.)

Ok, just audited things and Fortran seem benign, I think for C, 
Objective-C, Objective-C++ and C++ we are fine, and for Ada, there is 
ample evidence to require an explicit Ok from them before I put it 
in. treelang doesn't seem to care, and java doesn't seems benign as 
well, though, would be nice to hear from them, I think that's all 
the languages.
There is the whole inlining semantic that it might be nice to hear 
back from an inline expert on. We remap decls and types if they are 
variably modified. I say no it is not a VM type more often, so 
something about inline might care. A nested function expert might be 
able to spot an edge case we care about.
For any language front end found to want to make make these types VM, 
they can add the clause I too out back to their lang hook. Ada might 
do this for example.
In C++ there are some uses, but I think they are all ok, any edge 
case can be fixed in the same way.