Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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
Agreed. | 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. Hmm, using RECORD_TYPE for both classes and pointer to member functions seem to me to be less desirable as say, using tree for just about any data structure. I would think as we gradually move toward representations closer to the standard specification we would represent distinct notions by distinct data structures. I recon that such representation needs a lowering stage, but it looks like we're doing that more or less already. Do I miss something? -- Gaby
