This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [lto] PATCH: Add support for referencing types from function bodies
> Then why did RTH keep on telling Kenner to use CONST_DECLs for the same
> reason why the Objective-C uses them, to take an ADDR_EXPR of them for
I read that as saying "don't take the address of a CONSTRUCTOR", not "use
CONST_DECL"! Indeed he said "CONST_DECL or VAR_DECL".
I think the semantics of CONST_DECL have always been a bit peculiar. The
most common usage was for enumeral names, but there has been an increasing
trend in recent years to use them as if they were equivalent to a readonly
VAR_DECL. I was one of those people. But I think that was wrong and the
primary reason it was wrong is that it's now hard to say what the
*difference* between a CONST_DECL and readonly VAR_DECL is: there shouldn't
be two different ways of saying the same thing.
So I now support going back to viewing CONST_DECL as nothing more than the
name of a constant.