On 20/11/2019 02:13, Ramsay Jones wrote:
[snip]
>
> Hmm, shouldn't these:
>
>> + {"const", NS_KEYWORD, MOD_PURE, .op = &attr_fun_op },
>> + {"__const", NS_KEYWORD, MOD_PURE, .op = &attr_fun_op },
>> + {"__const__", NS_KEYWORD, MOD_PURE, .op = &attr_fun_op },
>
> ... be attr_mod_op? (I'm just reading this in my email client, so I
> haven't given it much thought, but it just seems wrong ...)
Of course, as soon as my head hit the pillow, I remembered that
gcc has a 'const function attribute', somewhat similar to 'pure'.
(I just looked it up, because I couldn't remember what the
difference was between 'const' and 'pure'!).
So, just ignore me! :-D
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
