> Martin Koegler wrote: > ... > Before I start experimenting with this, I want other people opinions, > how acceptable this proposal will before GCC mainline or if it can be > improved.
- sound's good, and a natural generalization of current mem ref attributes. (However ideally, function parameter and result value references would need to be similarly qualify-able in order to enable the proper attributes to be associated and enforced when references to such attributed objects are passed-to/returned-from function calls; as otherwise the object's storage reference attribute will be lost; which could in theory could be enabled by allowing the qualification an arbitrary variable, parameter, result storage type reference as a natural extension; thereby allowing the specification of a pointer parameter to a static const value be specified as "(static const)*", as opposed to being parsed as "static (const *) by default which specifies a static pointer parameter which is prohibited, therefore wouldn't introduce an ambiguity if the optionally enabled.)
