AaronBallman wrote: > > > Discussion on the WG14 reflectors suggested that the qualifiers should > > > still be stripped from the type of the controlling expression; the > > > standard should be corrected to make this more clear. > > > > > > Does WG14 think we're right to produce a qualified rvalue in this case? > > Another option might be to strip qualifiers in rvalue member access, but > > that would have further-reaching impact. > > The sentiment on the reflector (granted, it's reflector sentiment and not > asked of the whole committee in an official way) was that you do get a > qualified rvalue out a member access expression
Now Joseph Myers has brought up the opposite: >>Do you think GCC would be willing to break code >> using __typeof__ so that __typeof__ and typeof behave the same in this >> case? If so, I can check with the Clang community to see if there's an >> > I think it would be a reasonable change in GCC not to have qualifiers here > for either typeof or __typeof__, much like a series of previous fixes in > this area by Martin to avoid qualifiers on rvalues in other cases. The > one case where we deliberately make C23 typeof behave differently from > __typeof__ (any mode) and typeof in pre-C23 GNU modes is that __typeof__ > treats the noreturn property of a function as being part of its type. So it's now less clear which direction to resolve this. I am thinking of putting up a question on Discourse to see whether the community would support changing `__typeof__` behavior to drop qualifiers in this case despite that being a potentially breaking change. If the community says we cannot/should not, then that's good information to bring back to WG14. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96913 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
