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

[Bug middle-end/23237] [4.1 Regression] -O1 rejects valid code (xxx causes a section type conflict).


------- Additional Comments From jconner at apple dot com  2005-08-24 17:24 -------
(In reply to comment #8)

> Actually TREE_READONLY is correct and TREE_CONSTANT is incorrect to use this context (there was a 
> discussion about this before but I cannot find it).
> TREE_CONSTANT is not set by the way on "static const" variables in C anyways, only TREE_READONLY.

Your second sentence is consistent with my (admittedly naive) understanding - that TREE_READONLY 
represents whether the value is declared constant, and TREE_READONLY represents whether the value 
actually changes.

Sorry if this has been hashed out already - I thought I would put down what I've seen in case it hadn't 
been looked into yet.  I'll search the web archives to see if I can find that previous discussion.

Thanks!



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23237


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