> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Martin Koegler wrote: >> ... >> Before I start experimenting with this, I want other people opinions, >> how acceptable this proposal will before GCC mainline or if it can be >> improved. > > - sound's good, and a natural generalization of current mem ref attributes. > > (However ideally, function parameter and result value references would need > to be similarly qualify-able in order to enable the proper attributes to > be associated and enforced when references to such attributed objects are > passed-to/returned-from function calls; as otherwise the object's storage > reference attribute will be lost; which could in theory could be enabled > by allowing the qualification an arbitrary variable, parameter, result > storage type reference as a natural extension; thereby allowing the > specification of a pointer parameter to a static const value be specified > as "(static const)*", as opposed to being parsed as "static (const *) by > default which specifies a static pointer parameter which is prohibited, > therefore wouldn't introduce an ambiguity if the optionally enabled.)
To be somewhat clearer, a storage class could potentially qualify the type of an referenced object, just as the target specific type qualifiers may (i.e. rom, eeprom, progmem, etc.) when used within the context of a function parameter or result type specification, i.e. (rom const)* or (static const)* as a possibility to enable the more generic, and somewhat less target specific qualification of static-const/literal and label/function() mem references in addition to the use of more target specific named ones?
