This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] fix warning about duplicate 'const'
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at osdl dot org>,Thomas Schlichter <thomas dot schlichter at web dot de>,Andrew Morton <akpm at osdl dot org>, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:40:01 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix warning about duplicate 'const'
- References: <200403090043.21043.thomas.schlichter@web.de> <20040308161410.49127bdf.akpm@osdl.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403081627450.9575@ppc970.osdl.org> <200403090217.40867.thomas.schlichter@web.de> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403081728250.9575@ppc970.osdl.org> <20040310054918.GB4068@twiddle.net>
Richard Henderson wrote:-
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 05:32:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Also, I'm not convinced this isn't a gcc regression. It would be stupid to
> > "fix" something that makes old gcc's complain, when they may be doing the
> > right thing.
>
> Problem is, that we're supposed to complain for
>
> const const int x;
> and
> typedef const int t;
> const t x;
>
> The proposition that we're not supposed to complain for
>
> const int a;
> const __typeof(a) x;
>
> seems dicey at best. I'm not sure what to do about this, actually.
> We might could do something with a new __nonqual_typeof(a) that
> strips outermost type qualifications, but I havn't given that much
> thought.
Or you could compile in C99 mode?
Neil.