This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch for 8271
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <rasky at develer dot com>
- To: "Nathan Sidwell" <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<bangerth at dealii dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:34:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: patch for 8271
- References: <42D3A7B7.4060900@codesourcery.com>
Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Giovanni,
> your patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00550.html
> -- gosh I didn't realize it was a year old. Looks to be a better approach
> than my 21799 patch. Do you know if it still works?
It's been retested by Wolfgang Bangerth a few days ago. I think he can
confirm this.
> You're not matching restrict qualifiers though -- I think you should.
Those
> will be on TREE_VALUE (TYPE_ARG_TYPES (...). Can you amend the patch to
> deal with those too?
I'm afraid I won't have time soon. If you reopen the bug and assign it to me
I can look into it later. Either that, or maybe you could take over it.
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.
--
Giovanni Bajo