https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68612
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Regueiro <alexreg at gmail dot com> --- That’s good to know. Do we have a suitable developer to take on this project? I would do it myself, but I’m not really qualified enough. I suppose trunk won’t be in bug-fixing mode too long… > On 1 Dec 2015, at 23:35, joseph at codesourcery dot com > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68612 > > --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery > dot com> --- > I'd consider this a reasonable extension (not suitable for adding while > trunk is in bug-fixing mode, of course) for default (non-pedantic) mode, > similar to the extension to use C++-like rules for arrays of qualified > type. Similar to that, it requires a lot of care to make sure it doesn't > cause valid code to be rejected, as well as thorough testcases. > > (To be clear, the C++ rule is not symmetric between const and other > qualifiers; it allows adding arbitrary qualifiers in certain places if > const is present at all levels of indirection beyond those where any > qualifiers are added. For this purpose, in C, _Atomic should not be > considered a qualifier, and you'd need to think about how address space > qualifiers are involved.) > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
