This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH for over-aggressive handling of unnamed structs
- To: mark at markmitchell dot com
- Subject: Re: PATCH for over-aggressive handling of unnamed structs
- From: Martin von Loewis <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:51:01 +0200
- CC: egcs at cygnus dot com
- References: <199805241501.IAA15418@mail.earthlink.net> <199805242041.WAA00760@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> <199805242219.PAA26778@mail.earthlink.net>
> Here, `S' does not have `that class type'; it has a cv-qualified
> version of that class type. You're proposing that `S' be the name of
> the unqualified struct, but `const S' and `S' be alternative names for
> the const-qualified version. (Yes, I know one name is for linkage
> purposes only.)
>
> I confirmed my interpretation with several members of the committee
> yesterday, FWIW.
So it is the interpretation that S does not have linkage?
Therefore, declaring
typedef const struct { } S;
void f(S);
would be ill-formed (as it declares a function with external linkage)?
Confused,
Martin