From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6642 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 17:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6610 invoked by uid 71); 24 Apr 2002 17:26:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020424172601.6609.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: jason@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: c++/6331: g++ 3.1 looses const qualifiers Reply-To: Jason Merrill X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01259.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/6331; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jason Merrill To: Mark Mitchell Cc: "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: c++/6331: g++ 3.1 looses const qualifiers Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:18:04 +0100 >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell writes: > Shucks, we were duplicating work; I was working on that too. Oops. I was guessing that you hadn't started on it yet. > When I tried the change you made to build_modify_expr, I got a failure in > this g++.benjamin/14664-1.c, which tests that we cannot assign a string > literal to an array of characters (because the array of characters is > const). This is probably a goofy test; what should be interesting is > whether we can assign the element types and it looks like the logic > for creating this test was that EDG issues an error -- but about array > assignment in general. I agree. > Anyhow, did you change the test, or did it still pass for you? Neither; I failed to notice the failure in my testrun. Double oops. The original bug report that the testcase is derived from complained about the error; the customer said that either the extension should be dropped or the testcase should be accepted. Neither of those came to pass. I wouldn't object to making the pedwarn unconditional. Jason