https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley <aph at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4) > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, aph at redhat dot com wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64044 > > > > Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com> changed: > > > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > CC| |aph at redhat dot com > > > > --- Comment #2 from Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com> --- > > So, is the solution to this trivially not to mark the .class$ decls as > > TREE_CONST ? > > Yes, see the patch I proposed (in testing right now, I'll post it > and ask for approval later today unless you want to pre-approve here) Fine by me. I did that because I wanted some way to tell GCC that it could treat the field as readonly, but TREE_CONST doesn't do that.
