This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [C++ RFC/Patch] PR 34938


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?


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