public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/46220] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Error: invalid covariant return type generated for incomplete class type and different qualifer
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:16:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101029011600.E1hjSSWvTc_f_DIViCmxgoRelb5947O3-wYDQcam7ts@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-46220-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46220

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-29 01:16:02 UTC ---
Jason, is there a reason to disallow covariant returns where the return type
only differs in cv-qualification of the class type?

Could the requirement for a complete type be incorporated into the second
bullet of p5, since it has to be complete for us to know it's an accessible
base?

Why does the third bullet of p5 talk about the cv-qualification of pointers and
references, when top-level cv-quals in return types are ignored, and references
have no cv-quals?  Is this an artefact of ARM-era C++?

Am I misreading the wording, or should I ask Mike to open an issue?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-10-29  1:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-28 23:10 [Bug c++/46220] New: Error: invalid covariant return type generated for incomplete class type nathan.keynes at oracle dot com
2010-10-28 23:16 ` [Bug c++/46220] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Error: invalid covariant return type generated for incomplete class type and different qualifer pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-29  0:45 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-29  0:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-29  1:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2010-11-12 14:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-03 20:52 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 15:18 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-05 20:35 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101029011600.E1hjSSWvTc_f_DIViCmxgoRelb5947O3-wYDQcam7ts@z \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).