Re: Compiling GCC With a C++ Compiler (g++)

[Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>]

On 12/10/2004, at 12:38 AM, Ranjit Mathew wrote:

> Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> > The definition of tree_string is:
> >
> >   struct tree_string GTY(())
> >   {
> >     struct tree_common common;
> >     int length;
> >     const char str[1];
> >   };
> >
> > If the "const" is removed from above, the compilation
> > proceeds.
>
> The "const char *pointer" -> "const char str[1]" change
> was done by geoffk as a part of fixing pch/13361.
>
> We now want to store the string in the node itself,
> rather than merely pointing to it.
>
> However, I still think that the "const" is
> misleading/incorrect. In build_string() in tree.c,
> we cast it to (char *) anyways before memcpy-ing the
> desired string into it.
>
> Would it be wrong to remove it? (And thus re-enable
> compiling this bit of GCC with a C++ compiler like
> g++.)

The 'const' is there to indicate that the string should not be changed 
once the STRING_CST is created; STRING_CSTs may be shared.

Why is C++ complaining about this?  It looks like a reasonable 
construct.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature