[cfe-dev] Better type-specifier representation

[Mike Stump]

On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote:
> I guess this isn't (strictly-speaking) a VLA since this is example  
> is C
> ++ code.

As long as you realize that:

void foo(int i) {
   int a[i];
}

is a VM object (has a VLA type) and is C++ code in the sense that it  
is compiled by g++, which happens to be not in the C++ language (yet),  
but is in the gnu C++ language.

> Nevertheless, should we treat these as VLAs in the ASTs?

I propose that we treat VLAs as VLAs and non-VLAs by a name other than  
VLA?!  I shudder to think anyone would want something different.   
Surely I must misunderstand something.