From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 06AB63938C2B; Wed,  6 May 2020 14:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 06AB63938C2B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1588774113;
 bh=IWn/Socls3HTDWq5xR8hUQv8hxV7BmZBiD29U+36IVE=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=DaNGrrtA3Hmyl8EqYedG7m24IWxlasWNNkwhEZYoPlfWSwwWS0nLrHHsx35nlHnmw
 HgGWXt1u2wAZp5Iauc4iDaOTGZutdpgFewCZVI+BWr0bdEpVlL2iOUiGR3/psd+4Sa
 vAdJE592xMeI2RxMfYzSJAbzbLcV48VQGhD/5pFo=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/92472] enhancement: 5 * constify some parameters
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:08:32 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: internal-improvement
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-92472-4-2gOifmJmPI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-92472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-92472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:08:33 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92472

--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Or in other words, of course whether a parameter can be const is separate f=
rom
whether a member function can be const. But that doesn't mean that changing=
 a
parameter from non-const to const can't have any effect. It certainly has an
effect on which member functions you can call on the parameter.=