On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 09:54, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
In fact there is already a proposal, waiting to be reviewed by LWG:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1147r0.html
