bug 2645 and restrict

[Nathan Sidwell]

Jason Merrill wrote:
> IMO, no.  "const" implies a property which reference types already have, so
> it's reasonable to ignore it. 
but volatile isn't, and that too is silently ignored. which is counter
to your point about restrict only applying to pointers.

	typedef int &ref_t;
	ref_t volatile thing;

though it does seem reasonable to reject restrict on non-pointers.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org