From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-373201-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31888 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2011 23:43:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 31875 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2011 23:43:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:43:01 +0000
From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51013] complex::{imag,real}() should maintain lvalue-returning extension in C++11
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:48:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-51013-4-CrOEKJcr0h@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51013-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51013-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00697.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |marc.glisse at normalesup
                   |                            |dot org

--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-11-07 23:42:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I did *not* *remove* anything, simply, for C++11, real() and imag() are exactly
> *per the letter* of the Standard, that is (similarly for the specializations):
> 
>       constexpr _Tp 
>       real() const { return _M_real; }

Isn't the const redundant here?
Actually, I only see constexpr for the specializations in the standard, not for
the general case, am I looking at the wrong place?

>       constexpr _Tp 
>       imag() const { return _M_imag; }
> 
> and I don't see why we should do something different. But, if Gaby thinks,
> everything considered, that we want something different, I'm not going to
> object to patches to that effect (from a technical point of view, note the
> functions are now constexpr, thus you can't simply have two overloads anymore)

Why can't you still have these overloads?
constexpr _Tp real(); // const
_Tp&real();

Note that I am not taking position on whether it should be added, I am just
confused by the technical reasons.