------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-03-01 03:43 ------- Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for function parameter
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-01 > No static is wrong here, period, what you need is an attribute which tells > the back-end that these are pointers to ROM and such. Yes I understand. However it seems somewhat ironic that "static const" already does just that, as it specifies the storage class and access restrictions used to determine exactly the data stored in ROM; as such it seems less invasive to consider allowing it to be optionally accepted as a more restrictive parameter type specifier, rather than alternatively requiring the introduction of a nearly redundant non-standard storage type specifier in it's place, seemingly requiring modifications to much of GCC's internals, from the parser down through to the code generator to be made aware of this new attribute; unless I misunderstand the extent of the surgery likely required? (might the optional acceptance of a static storage class attribute for parameters be worth considering, given the apparent lack of less invasive alternatives?) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20258