This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: "discards qualifiers" is less helpful than "discards const"


"L. Peter Deutsch" wrote:
> > This is somewhat unfair to both sides.  On the one hand, putting the error
> > message you want back is non-trivial because of the way the code has been
> > restructured since 2.7.  It is not simply a case of reverting a patch.
> 
> Thanks for the information.  I had no way of knowing this.  I'm quite
> willing to accept an answer of "The code has been redesigned, so
> retrofitting isn't feasible, and the current error handling framework makes
> handling this properly very awkward."  If that information had been in the
> original response, I would simply have shrugged my shoulders and been
> willing to wait for someone with more knowledge of the compiler to propose a
> fix the maintainers would accept.

It might be worth noting that there are only three qualifiers, at
least in C: const, volatile, and restrict.  Odds are your programs
never use volatile or restrict, so when you see "discarding
qualifiers" you can pretty much assume it means "discarding const."

I believe I can get rid of the kludge in the patch I posted, but it
will take me a couple days.

zw


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]