On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, NightStrike via Gcc-help wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 2:59 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, 02:43 NightStrike via Gcc-help, <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Currently, printing a "void *" works fine, and printing a "volatile
void *" fails with a very unclear error. This appears to be due to
the nonexistence of a function that can handle a volatile pointer.
While I am guessing that it is not covered by the standard, would GCC
folks consider having a GCC extension that can properly print it?
No, I don't think so. Can't you just use const_cast?
Yes, and I can also just write the overload myself (which is what I
ultimately did) as:
inline std::ostream & operator<<(std::ostream & os, void const volatile * p) {
return os << const_cast<void const *>(p);
}
But, I find it surprising as a user that I have to do this, and I
don't understand the rationale for why the standard would
intentionally leave it out.
You could try proposing the extra overload(s) on
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals (or maybe as a
replacement for the void const* one?), this is much less formal than
sending a paper to the C++ committee and could get some quick feedback. Or
of course you can directly write a paper for WG21...
Nowadays, gcc tries to minimize new non-standard extensions, so the way in
is through the standard.
--
Marc Glisse
