>>You may need to run contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh to get the git >>gcc-verify command. I re-setup and can use git gcc-verify. Now I can see it rejects because I forgot to add a description of modified file. Now that it passes gcc-verify and I attach the changelog as attachment. Thank you again for your patient explanation and help! On 9/26/21 21:31, nick huang via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hi Jason, > > 1. Thank you very much for your detailed comments for my patch and I really appreciate it! Here is my revised patch: > > The root cause of this bug is that it considers reference with > cv-qualifiers as an error by generating value for variable "bad_quals". > However, this is not correct for case of typedef. Here I quote spec: > "Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers > are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef], > [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]), > in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored." > > 2021-09-25  qingzhe huang  > > gcc/cp/ >        PR c++/101783 >        * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real): git gcc-verify still rejects this line with ERR: missing description of a change: " * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real):" You may need to run contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh to get the git gcc-verify command. > gcc/testsuite/ >        PR c++/101783 >        * g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C: New test. > -------------- next part -------------- Please drop this line, it breaks git gcc-verify when I apply the patch with git am.  The patch should start immediately after the ChangeLog entries. > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c > index 8840932dba2..d5c8daeb340 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.c > @@ -1356,11 +1356,18 @@ cp_build_qualified_type_real (tree type, >     /* A reference or method type shall not be cv-qualified. >        [dcl.ref], [dcl.fct].  This used to be an error, but as of DR 295 >        (in CD1) we always ignore extra cv-quals on functions.  */ > + > +  /* Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers In my previous reply I meant please add "[dcl.ref]/1" at the beginning of this comment. > +     are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef], > +     [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]), > +     in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored. > +   */ >     if (type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE) >         && (TYPE_REF_P (type) >          || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type))) >       { > -      if (TYPE_REF_P (type)) > +      if (TYPE_REF_P (type) > +       && (!typedef_variant_p (type) || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type))) >        bad_quals |= type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE); >         type_quals &= ~(TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE); >       } > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..4e0a435dd0b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > +template struct A{ > +        typedef T& Type; > +}; > +template void f(const typename A::Type){} > +template <> void f(const typename A::Type){} > > > > 2. >> In Jonathan's earlier reply he asked how you tested the patch; this >> message still doesn't say anything about that. > I communicated with Mr. Jonathan in private email, worrying my naive question might pollute the public maillist. The following is major part of this communication and I attached original part in attachment. > >>>> How has this patch been tested? Have you bootstrapped the compiler and >>>> run the full testsuite? > Here is how I am doing: > a) build original 10.2.0 from scratch and make check to get both "testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum" > and "testsuite/g++/g++.sum". > b) apply my patch and build from scratch and make check to get both two files above. > c) compare two run's *.sum files to see if there is any difference. > >   (Later I realized there is tool  "contrib/compare_tests" is a good help of doing so.) > > 3. >> What is the legal status of your contributions? > I thought small patch didn't require assignment. However, I just sent email to assign@gnu.org to request assignment. > Alternatively, I am not sure if adding this "signoff" tag in submission will help? > Signed-off-by: qingzhe huang > > > Thank you again! > > >> On 8/28/21 07:54, nick huang via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> Reference with cv-qualifiers should be ignored instead of causing an error >>> because standard accepts cv-qualified references introduced by typedef which >>> is ignored. >>> Therefore, the fix prevents GCC from reporting error by not setting variable >>> "bad_quals" in case the reference is introduced by typedef. Still the >>> cv-qualifier is silently ignored. >>> Here I quote spec (https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/dcl.ref#1): >>> "Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers >>> are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef], >>> [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]), >>> in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored." >>> >>> PR c++/101783 >>> >>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2021-08-27  qingzhe huang  >>> >>> * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real): >> >> The git commit verifier rejects this commit message with >> >> Checking 1fa0fbcdd15adf936ab4fae584f841beb35da1bb: FAILED ERR: missing >> description of a change: >> " * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real):" >> >> (your initial patch had a description here, you just need to copy it over) >> >> ERR: PR 101783 in subject but not in changelog: >> "c++: Suppress error when cv-qualified reference is introduced by >> typedef [PR101783]" >> >> (the PR number needs to have a Tab before it) >> >> In Jonathan's earlier reply he asked how you tested the patch; this >> message still doesn't say anything about that. >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing >> >> What is the legal status of your contributions? >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal >> >> Existing code tries to handle this with the tf_ignore_bad_quals, but the >> unnecessary use of typename gets past the code that tries to set the >> flag.  But your approach is nice and straightforward, so let's go ahead >> with it. >> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2021-08-27  qingzhe huang  >>> >>> * g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C: New test. >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c >>> index 8840932dba2..7aa4318a574 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/cp/tree.c >>> +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.c >>> @@ -1356,12 +1356,22 @@ cp_build_qualified_type_real (tree type, >>>      /* A reference or method type shall not be cv-qualified. >>>         [dcl.ref], [dcl.fct].  This used to be an error, but as of DR 295 >>>         (in CD1) we always ignore extra cv-quals on functions.  */ >>> + >>> +  /* PR 101783 >> >> Let's cite where this comes from in the standard ([dcl.ref]/1), and not >> the PR number. >> >>> +     Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers >>> +     are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef], >>> +     [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]), >>> +     in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored. >>> +   */ >>>      if (type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE) >>>          && (TYPE_REF_P (type) >>>     || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type))) >>>        { >>> -      if (TYPE_REF_P (type)) >>> +      // do NOT set bad_quals when non-method reference is introduced by typedef. >>> +      if (TYPE_REF_P (type) >>> +  && (!typedef_variant_p (type) || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type))) >>>    bad_quals |= type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE); >>> +      // non-method reference introduced by typedef is also dropped silently >> >> These two // comments seem redundant with the quote from the standard >> above, let's drop them. >> >>>          type_quals &= ~(TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE); >>>        } >>>   >>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 00000000000..4e0a435dd0b >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C >>> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>> +template struct A{ >>> +        typedef T& Type; >>> +}; >>> +template void f(const typename A::Type){} >>> +template <> void f(const typename A::Type){} >>> >>>