Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think that the underlying problem here, as with pointers to data members,
> comes from using POINTER_TYPE in the first type.  Pointers to members are
> not pointers, and so using POINTER_TYPE just causes confusion.

I heartily agree.  PTRMEM_CST was a step in the right direction, on the 
object-representation side; we need a PTRMEM_TYPE on the type side as 
well.  Because we don't have a proper lowering phase, the difficulty is 
that we need to transmute PTRMEM_TYPE into OFFSET_TYPE/RECORD_TYPE at 
some point.

However, that's no excuse for forming a POINTER_TYPE pointing to a 
METHOD_TYPE or member FUNCTION_TYPE.  Such things should be replaced 
with the RECORD_TYPEs we presently use to represent pointers to member 
functions.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304