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
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
zygoloid 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
https://github.com/Sirraide approved this pull request.
Implementation LGTM.
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
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Aaron Ballman (AaronBallman)
Changes
It is possible to get a qualified rvalue in C. Consider:
struct { cont int i; } foo();
_Generic(foo().i, ...);
foo() returns an rvalue for the anonymous structure, the member access
expression then
https://github.com/AaronBallman created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96913
It is possible to get a qualified rvalue in C. Consider:
struct { cont int i; } foo();
_Generic(foo().i, ...);
foo() returns an rvalue for the anonymous structure, the member access
expression then resu
