https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- I don't know what DWARF semantics are meant to be, but the language semantics are definitely that in C array types are always unqualified, whereas in C++, while the qualifiers still apply to the element type, the array type is also considered qualified for most/all purposes. > When I just not do that main variant punning here I get > > <1><60>: Abbrev Number: 10 (DW_TAG_variable) > <61> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x7b): harry > <65> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 > <66> DW_AT_decl_line : 5 > <67> DW_AT_type : <0x75> > ... > <1><75>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_const_type) > <76> DW_AT_type : <0x49> > <1><49>: Abbrev Number: 7 (DW_TAG_array_type) > <4a> DW_AT_type : <0x39> > <4e> DW_AT_sibling : <0x59> > <1><39>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_typedef) > <3a> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): Harry_t > <3e> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 > <3f> DW_AT_decl_line : 4 > <40> DW_AT_type : <0x44> > > instead. Not sure about that "extra" const qualifier on the array type > though. Does the extra qualifier come from decl_quals extracting qualifiers from a decl to combine with those for the type? My guess would be that such code for extracting qualifiers is a legacy of when, a long time ago (before <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00498.html>), the types of decls in the C and C++ front ends did not include top-level qualifiers, and so should be obsolete now.
