[Bug c++/15624] New: Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[Bug c++/15624] New: Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

Invalid method signatures are generated where parameter types are defined,
particularly inside namespaces (namespace, struct, class).

-- 
           Summary: Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method
                    signatures.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.3.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: sbrenneis at surry dot net
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --
                    infodir=/us
  GCC host triplet: Fedora Core 1
GCC target triplet: 3.3.2 20031022 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.2-1)


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sbrenneis at surry dot net  2004-05-24 01:05 -------
Created an attachment (id=6366)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6366&action=view)
Test case.

Test case reproduces the bug.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sbrenneis at surry dot net  2004-05-24 01:08 -------
Command line: g++ gcctest.cc

Compiler output:

gcctest.cc: In function `int main(int, char**)':
gcctest.cc:28: error: invalid conversion from `const char*' to `char*'
gcctest.cc:28: error:   initializing argument 1 of `void ScopeTest::test(char*)
   '


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-05-24 01:33 -------
Here is a smaller example:
typedef char* CharPtr;
void t(const CharPtr);
void f(const char *t1)
{
  t(t1);
}

But I think this is invalid.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|../configure --prefix=/usr -|
                   |-mandir=/usr/share/man --   |
                   |infodir=/us                 |
   GCC host triplet|Fedora Core 1               |
 GCC target triplet|3.3.2 20031022 (Red Hat     |
                   |Linux 3.3.2-1)              |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-05-24 13:47 -------
'const CharPtr' is a constant pointer to a character. 
'const char *' is a pointer to a constant character. 
The testcase is therefore invalid code, and gcc is correct 
in reporting an error. 
 
W. 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sbrenneis at surry dot net  2004-05-24 17:46 -------
The error message from gcc, then, is misleading. It fails to indicate any const
qualifier in the method signature. Should this be filed as a separate bug?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-05-24 17:49 -------
Um, why do you say that? The error message is 
  invalid conversion from `const char*' to `char*' 
which is about as clear as it can be, no? 
 
W. 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sbrenneis at surry dot net  2004-05-24 23:10 -------
gcctest.cc:28: error:   initializing argument 1 of `void ScopeTest::test(char*)
   '

Argument 1 of ScopeTest::test is "const TestTraits::CharPtr". The error message
indicates a misleading error and an invalid method signature, hence the bug
report. As you are technically correct about the error report, gcc should report
"error: invalid conversion from `const char*' to `char const*'" and "error:
initializing argument 1 of void ScopeTest::test(char const*)." While the fact of
the error is correct, the report of the error generated by gcc is incorrect and
misleading.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-05-25 00:09 -------
No, gcc is still correct since from a language viewpoint, the 
following two declarations are exactly identical: 
  void f(char *); 
  void f(char *const); 
For the argument signature, the const in the second case is irrelevant, 
and is thus dropped. You can see this by simply compiling these two 
lines above (as a C file; remember that C does not have function 
overloading) -- the compiler accepts this as a duplicate declaration,  
whereas it does not accept these two lines: 
  void f(char *); 
  void f(const char*); 
generating an error about conflicting declarations. 
 
W. 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624

[Bug c++/15624] Defined types lose const qualifiers in certain method signatures.

[sbrenneis at surry dot net]

------- Additional Comments From sbrenneis at surry dot net  2004-05-25 13:08 -------
Right you are. I re-read ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)-8.3.5(3). Thanks for your time
and the discussion.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624