--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-16 17:17 ---
Testing a patch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-16 23:10 ---
Subject: Bug 27697
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Aug 16 23:10:46 2006
New Revision: 116194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116194
Log:
PR c/27697
* c-typeck.c (build_component_ref):
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-16 23:12 ---
Subject: Bug 27697
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Aug 16 23:12:37 2006
New Revision: 116195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=116195
Log:
PR c/27697
* c-typeck.c (build_component_ref):
--- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-17 03:42
---
The trick of using -pedantic-errors to turn every invalid warning into
rejects-valid is not useful. Downgrading to P2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27697
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-21 16:15 ---
This is also rejects valid with -pedantic-errors.
I don't understand what is correct here so I am not going to confirm it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-21 23:17
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] incorrect warning about constness of
pointer to an array in a const struct
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #4 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-21 23:53 ---
Confirmed, my first guess as to a fix would be to make build_component_ref
arrange for the type of the COMPONENT_REF to have the necessary qualifiers via
c_build_qualified_type.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
