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?
