------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-03-01 22:43 ------- Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for function parameter
> -- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-01 > Subject: error generated for storage class specified for function parameter > >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, schlie at comcast dot net wrote: >> not supported by the present standard; it may be worthy of consideration as >> a sensible optionally enabled extension; as the use of the combination >> "static const" in this context seems fully consistent with the specification > > It seems like an extension that would not be sensible at all. Type 2 TRs > are for experimental features and should be considered as "if you want to > do this, it would be a good idea to do it this way; you might find issues > through implementation experience which lead to the TR being improved and > the subject matter eventually becoming less experimental". So given > there's a DTR on this subject, if you want to implement address spaces you > should follow the TR and so assist future standardisation rather than > implementing some random other extension to do the same thing. We > shouldn't go implementing our own new extension to do something there's a > standard way to do. Understood. Are you aware of any existing efforts to extend GCC in this way; or likely need to start from scratch? (any warnings/recommendations?) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20258
