On 05/20/09 09:45:11, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2009, Gary Funck wrote: > > > That aside, I wonder if it is an error to drop the qualifiers > > as shown above? In the case of UPC, for example, dropping qualifiers > > Please read the code (and comment) immediately above that you quoted, > which saves the qualifiers combined with those specified in the > declaration, and the subsequent code applying them in the process of > building up the type. > [...] See the named address space patches for > examples of adding extra type qualifiers.
Thanks. We've generally gotten that part right by adding a few qualifier bits. We can't however encode UPC's "layout qualifier" into the qualifier bits and we have to maintain it separately. I do see now that the layout qualifier on an element type should be handled earlier along with the rest of the qualifiers in the section that you're referencing. > The bug would probably be that it doesn't also drop > them if flag_gen_aux_info. Agreed. Though presumably the flag_gen_aux_info logic will have to be adjusted as well.