Jason Merrill wrote:
I think that the underlying problem here, as with pointers to data members, comes from using POINTER_TYPE in the first type. Pointers to members are not pointers, and so using POINTER_TYPE just causes confusion.
I heartily agree. PTRMEM_CST was a step in the right direction, on the object-representation side; we need a PTRMEM_TYPE on the type side as well. Because we don't have a proper lowering phase, the difficulty is that we need to transmute PTRMEM_TYPE into OFFSET_TYPE/RECORD_TYPE at some point.
However, that's no excuse for forming a POINTER_TYPE pointing to a METHOD_TYPE or member FUNCTION_TYPE. Such things should be replaced with the RECORD_TYPEs we presently use to represent pointers to member functions.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
