On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/26/2017 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Thanks - yes; that gives information on the const vs non-const of the
>> "this" parameter, but doesn't say whether the argument was const vs non
>> -const.
>
>
>> However, within:
>>
>> int t
On 04/26/2017 12:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Thanks - yes; that gives information on the const vs non-const of the
"this" parameter, but doesn't say whether the argument was const vs non
-const.
However, within:
int test_const_ptr (const t1 *ptr)
{
return ptr->m_color;
}
from which we can
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 18:22 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:11 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > > On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >
> > > > { return FIELD; }
>
> > I tried adding the kind of filtering yo
On 04/25/2017 04:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:11 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
{ return FIELD; }
I tried adding the kind of filtering you suggest, but the binfo doesn't
seem to have info on const vs non-const qualificat
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 12:11 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> >{ return FIELD; }
> >
> > for the correct field, favoring returning T to returning T&.
>
> Hm, that seems the poorer choice (unless you can suggest both).
> After
> all the T& case
On 04/25/2017 11:58 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
{ return FIELD; }
for the correct field, favoring returning T to returning T&.
Hm, that seems the poorer choice (unless you can suggest both). After
all the T& case will meet the rvalue case (const-qualifiers ignoring). I
suppose if thing is
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 07:49 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 07:46 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > On 04/24/2017 04:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > test.cc:12:13: note: field ‘int foo::m_field’ can be accessed via
> > > ‘int
> > > foo::get_field() const’
> > > return f->m_fiel
On 04/25/2017 07:46 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 04/24/2017 04:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
test.cc:12:13: note: field ‘int foo::m_field’ can be accessed via ‘int
foo::get_field() const’
return f->m_field;
^~~
get_field()
Assuming that an IDE can offer to ap
On 04/24/2017 04:06 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
test.cc:12:13: note: field ‘int foo::m_field’ can be accessed via ‘int
foo::get_field() const’
return f->m_field;
^~~
get_field()
Assuming that an IDE can offer to apply fix-it hints, this should
make it easier to
