This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: bugs.html
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:54:42 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: bugs.html
- References: <Pine.BSF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Could anyone please advise me on the following? Is the patch okay?
(And how about that section of bugs.html considering recent changes
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Nathan, what do you think about the patch below?
> If you prefer a variation thereof, please go ahead and commit an
> updated patch or let me know what changes you'd like to see.
> (And in general, would you mind having a look at that section of
> bugs.html which, IIRC, was contributed by you?)
> Index: bugs.html
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs.html,v
> retrieving revision 1.70
> diff -u -3 -p -r1.70 bugs.html
> --- bugs.html 4 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0000 1.70
> +++ bugs.html 6 Jun 2003 18:12:55 -0000
> @@ -487,10 +487,8 @@ in GCC 3.1.
> <dt>Covariant return types</dt>
> -<dd>We do not implement non-trivial covariant returns. We also generate
> -incorrect virtual function tables for trivial covariance. Although
> -trivial covariance will work, it is incompatible with the ABI. GNATS PR
> -3706 tracks this problem.</dd>
> +<dd>Up to (and including) GCC 3.3 we did not implement non-trivial
> +covariant returns, but this has been addressed for GCC 3.4.</dd>