From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-376010-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17859 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2014 19:48:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 17841 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2014 19:48:21 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-wg0-f44.google.com
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:48:20 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m15so10801838wgh.15        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.93.7 with SMTP id cq7mr7369943wjb.58.1408736897813; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.80.73 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53F79AF8.3020004@oracle.com>
References: <53F78398.2000908@oracle.com> <53F7894C.8010803@redhat.com> <53F797AD.5070309@oracle.com> <53F79990.5040004@redhat.com> <53F79AF8.3020004@oracle.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez=2DIb=E1=F1ez?= <lopezibanez@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:48:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAESRpQC2GCs3j41zXkVbaa+R1mK81CPK4U8FEzx7Jq=Hs7z79Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [C++ RFC/Patch] PR 34938
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg02219.txt.bz2

On 22 August 2014 21:33, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Incidentally, I don't understand
>>
>>> +      pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type && !method_type
>>
>> vs
>>>
>>> +      pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type || method_type
>>
>>
>> Surely the same logic is appropriate for both const and noreturn, and they
>> are represented the same way on both function_ and method_type.
>
> Ah, Ok, now I see, it's just that volatile member functions aren't *that*
> common ;)

Are there actually cases where the qualifiers mean different things
for function_type and method_type?