This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: patch for 8271

From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
To: Giovanni Bajo <rasky at develer dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, bangerth at dealii dot org
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:17:46 +0100
Subject: Re: patch for 8271
References: <42D3A7B7.4060900@codesourcery.com> <02dc01c586de$0476bf80$bf03030a@trilan>

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Notice that the patch was reviewed and rejected by Jason, on the basis that
the correct solution would be adding cv qualifiers to the METHOD_TYPE
(which, btw, also the standard seems to imply when it says that cv
qualifications apply to the method type): do that, and you don't require
anymore special cases in the unification machinery.

yes, this is the 'correct' fix. I had a quick look and placing the CVquals on the METHOD_TYPE immediately brings up a TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT question. Currently T X::(...) is not the TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT of T X::(...) const I guess it probably should be.

I propose replacing my fix by your patch, but adding a FIXME detailing the correct fix. Your patch is the most pragmatic fix for the moment, IMO.

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

References:
- patch for 8271
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: patch for 8271
  - From: Giovanni Bajo

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