On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > In all of clang, gcc, and comeau, some sort of error is given for a > declaration like "void f(const void);". However, as far as I can > tell, it's perfectly valid code (although mostly worthless, since the > declared function can't be called or defined). Is there some reason > for rejecting this that I'm missing?
FWIW I agree, I can't see any reason to reject this admittedly useless type qualifier. While void isn't a valid lvalue, from my reading it just means that the const is useless - not incorrect. Someone could conceivably raise it on the C reflector though. -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
