------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-03-01 15:20 ------- Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for function parameter
> - Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01 >> Yes I understand. However it seems somewhat ironic that "static const" >> already does just that, as it specifies the storage class and access > > What if it were the pointer that was like this? You need a type > qualifier, not a storage class. - unless I misunderstand the question, the only way a pointer itself would be stored in ROM were if it were itself a static const value, and in turn would itself need to be referenced by a (static const *), where once referenced, (i.e. the pointer's value is now in a non-static variable) so it itself never be further qualified (I think)? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20258