[cfe-dev] Better type-specifier representation

[Eli Friedman]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote:
>> 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.

If I recall correctly, in C++, in "const int i = 10; int a[i];", the
declaration of a is valid (and not a VLA) because "i" is a constant
expression (as opposed to C99, where it is a VLA).

In any case, I can't figure out what owns the expression in the
braces; I wouldn't be surprised if it leaks.

-Eli