rjmccall added a comment. In D125919#3554078 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919#3554078>, @delcypher wrote:
> @aaron.ballman Hey I just saw this change and had questions about it. For > others looking I think the resolution to DR423 is in > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1863.pdf, I found > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2148.htm#dr_423 hard to > parse. > > 1. It looks like we're completely dropping qualifiers on the return types of > function in C. If that's the case, what's even the point of having qualifiers > on return types of functions? I think that's the point: qualifiers don't mean anything on return types, so they shouldn't be represented in the type. If the user writes a qualifier directly on the return type, like `const int twice(int x);`, we should warn about that; otherwise they should be silently dropped. > 2. Reading DR423 I see the problem but I don't understand why the desire to > make `_Generic` work better in the presence of qualifiers means that > qualifiers on function return types have to be dropped in all contexts. > Couldn't this just be a thing that is done inside `_Generic` and no where > else? > > Sorry if these are silly questions and if I've misunderstood something, I saw > n1863 say "functions return unqualified types" and I was very surprised. Just to be clear, you understand that this is only about top-level qualifiers on the return type, right? `const void *foo();` is still meaningful, it's just that `const void * const foo();` isn't. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
