Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: remove an ignored qualifier on function return type

["Krystian Kuźniarek" <krystian.kuzniarek@gmail.com>]

Yeah, that's true. Ok, it's not applicable then. Thanks!

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:18, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 07:56, Krystian Kuźniarek via Libstdc++
> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > > So then you need to produce a changelog entry by hand.
> > I had this problem on some old Ubuntu 18.04. Anyway, here's new
> ChangeLog:
> >
> >     libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
> >
> >             * include/std/variant: Fix -Wignored-qualifiers
> >             in system headers.
> >
> >
> > >That doesn't test this header at all.
> > It does but indirectly. What I meant by manual test was:
> > ${GCC_GIT} -E contains_only_stdcpp_include.cpp > preprocessed.cpp
> > ${GCC_GIT} -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -fsyntax-only preprocessed.cpp
> > By manipulating GCC_GIT variable to trunk GCC and patched GCC, I checked
> if
> > the warning is gone.
> >
> > >What about the libstdc++ testsuite?
> > I hope you mean calling make bootstrap and make check. If that's ok, I
> > confirm it works on Manjaro and Ubuntu 18.04 with gcc10 and gcc8
> > respectively.
> >
> > >I don't remember exactly why I put it there, but I seem to recall it
> > >was necessary.
> > I don't know your reasons but I can only tell that this patch seems to
> > compile and work just fine.
>
> I see new test failures with that change:
>
> include/variant:1039: error: invalid conversion from
> 'std::enable_if_t<true, const void> (*)(test02()::Visitor&&,
> std::variant<int, double>&)' {aka 'void (*)(test02()::Visitor&&,
> std::variant<int, double>&)'} to
> 'std::__detail::__variant::_Multi_array<co
> nst void (*)(test02()::Visitor&&, std::variant<int,
> double>&)>::__untag_result<const void (*)(test02()::Visitor&&,
> std::variant<int, double>&)>::element_type' {aka 'const void
> (*)(test02()::Visitor&&, std::variant<int, double>&)'} [-fpermissive]
> UNRESOLVED: 20_util/variant/visit_r.cc compilation failed to produce
> executable
>
>
> So I still think it's there for a reason.
>