This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ RFC/Patch] PR 34938
- From: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:47:57 +0200
- Subject: Re: [C++ RFC/Patch] PR 34938
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53F78398 dot 2000908 at oracle dot com> <53F7894C dot 8010803 at redhat dot com> <53F797AD dot 5070309 at oracle dot com> <53F79990 dot 5040004 at redhat dot com> <53F79AF8 dot 3020004 at oracle dot com>
On 22 August 2014 21:33, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Incidentally, I don't understand
>>
>>> + pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type && !method_type
>>
>> vs
>>>
>>> + pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type || method_type
>>
>>
>> Surely the same logic is appropriate for both const and noreturn, and they
>> are represented the same way on both function_ and method_type.
>
> Ah, Ok, now I see, it's just that volatile member functions aren't *that*
> common ;)
Are there actually cases where the qualifiers mean different things
for function_type and method_type?