[Bug c++/78119] wrong diagnostic pointer for -Werror=ignored-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed in r240863 i.e. PR 69733 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 69733 ***
[Bug c++/78119] wrong diagnostic pointer for -Werror=ignored-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #2) > % cat t.cpp > typedef void* Y; > struct X { > const Y get() const; > }; > % ~/toolchain/gcc/sysroot/x86_64-gnu-linux/bin/x86_64-gnu-linux-g++ t.cpp > -Wall -Wextra -c > t.cpp:3:19: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type > [-Wignored-qualifiers] > const Y get() const; >^ It points to the correct one for me with gcc8: $ /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -Wextra -c 78119.cc 78119.cc:3:5: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type [-Wignored-qualifiers] const Y get() const; ^ $ Hopefully someone with a better computer than me can bisect and find out when this was fixed.
[Bug c++/78119] wrong diagnostic pointer for -Werror=ignored-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119 Pawel Sikora changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.1.1 Known to fail||6.3.1 --- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora --- % cat t.cpp typedef void* Y; struct X { const Y get() const; }; % ~/toolchain/gcc/sysroot/x86_64-gnu-linux/bin/x86_64-gnu-linux-g++ t.cpp -Wall -Wextra -c t.cpp:3:19: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type [-Wignored-qualifiers] const Y get() const; ^
[Bug c++/78119] wrong diagnostic pointer for -Werror=ignored-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2017-08-21 CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- Could you provide a more complete testcase please?