Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The function type is no more > cv-qualified than any other function type; the only thing that's > cv-qualified is the type pointed to by the first argument.
The standard does not agree with you though, see 9.3.1/3. In fact, what happens is that we currently deduce the type wrong (PR 8271) because of the fact that the METHOD_TYPE is not cv-qualified. So either we special-case this, or we represent it correctly. FWIW, Jason agreed that the right way to fix this problem is to put cv qualification on METHOD_TYPE, rather than special-case hacks: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00550.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00630.html -- Giovanni Bajo
