On 5/04/2016 16:12, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 2016-04-05 06:39, Gavin Lambert wrote:
Type name != member name. It is still an anonymous union.
It is not. My reading of the above code snippet is that there is a nested function_buffer_members union type definition. There is no member of that type in function_buffer, and since it is not an anonymous union, its members are not "inlined" into the containing scope (i.e. the function_buffer union). The mutable keyword is illegal in that context.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Unnamed-Fields.html (specifically the discussion near "-fms-extensions"). Although interestingly, current MS compilers at least do appear to treat this as a nested type declaration rather than an anonymous member declaration. In any case, we've established that this isn't going to work, so I won't say any more on it.