From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92352 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2017 22:22:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 92324 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2017 22:22:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=parm X-HELO: mail-yw0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f178.google.com) (209.85.161.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:22:44 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 203so99838278ywe.0 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q1ESGw14RAUYXmfMH8cuIkKgKkANU/AYPj7Elrygfek=; b=H2sn4fvDZgmR3+fArLIRCp5FhEDz/Ikw4wxaB6UqfwdEoYCX2jwv2DyIoL0ixS4zs4 HT/i08gHfgeoB590/AwIdmyYevOHmeyvB94Zq/DU05XCMl5Y7zpG3RNp3ZUtMpwz+zeQ TOnPDnku/0S85uyCRv6O8YFerTt6VdwWEUVMKbvgSf/IGp/syY+oX44hV3nBOqnEmfjK TioKvPABe+1idv9UVdjEiB/wG1g8B+PpYzBbL//RB3M19SirJrN1k+4Y8nNSIVKOwayC GDe44RQIkSYgVwcJ1XbBbu/suK2OxqmPpmR+icYcH5TPz4v9smBya2EYG0lynBFwDJ/E Pa+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5tfwOGlxIHyp0AFMMW1nLXSE1Eo8eDWU79wOJbetIYIXCG34ia hbWhZX7fKI1yRQ== X-Received: by 10.129.98.2 with SMTP id w2mr12354011ywb.45.1493158965340; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:10d:c0a1:1102:b9b0:1beb:d21c:b3f4? ([2620:10d:c091:180::ab71]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p130sm9207743ywp.0.2017.04.25.15.22.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] C++: fix-it hints suggesting accessors for private fields To: David Malcolm , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <1493064385-51828-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <14a3b4be-6812-09c2-98a8-f812b164fc83@acm.org> <1493135927.9106.121.camel@redhat.com> <7ed87be1-3f90-77b0-68f0-cefb81be3c4b@acm.org> <1493150488.9106.130.camel@redhat.com> From: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <6c024a42-7a66-9e1a-051d-3ccc1379ff63@acm.org> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 04:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1493150488.9106.130.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg01259.txt.bz2 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 qualification of the accessor. You need to look at the type of the function-decl. I think looking at the artifical this parm on TYPE_ARG_TYPES? nathan -- Nathan Sidwell