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]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug c++/33801] Missing warning: "type qualifiers are meaningless in this declaration"


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33801

Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Missing warning             |Missing warning: "type
                   |                            |qualifiers are meaningless
                   |                            |in this declaration"

--- Comment #5 from Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22 12:07:48 UTC ---
What is the difference between this and this testcase:

typedef const double* const_double;     
void foo(const const_double);

Neither C nor C++ warn here with -Wall -Wextra. Clang neither warns in the
original testcase. I don't see how the const can hurt.

Anyway, adding a better description...


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