https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #16) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15) > > hmm .. EWG does seem to iterate at times ... maybe I can reach out to Lewis > > for the example (and to ask him how Ville's request is intended to be > > handled). This got discussed in some depth during the work on coroutines + > > contracts (and I thought we had agreement, apparently incorrectly) > > My revision of Gor's proposed wording > (https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21telecons2025/CoreWorkingGroup/2563.html) you mention the case that g_r_o is void .. I would think it reasonable to call out that this can only be valid in the case that the coroutine is, itself void? That is diagnosable. (i.e. it can be ill-formed to have a void g_r_o in any other case) > requires NRVO when eligible (i.e. same type ignoring cv-quals); isn't that > sufficient for Ville's request? yes, I think so > If a conversion is needed, the connection is broken anyway. indeed. > > In the meantime, perhaps it would be enough to revert the "fix" for PR115908 > > (and presumably mark that as INVALID?) - or do you have other thoughts? > > I think that would be a good start, but the reversion seems to be > significantly complicated by other changes to that function. yeah, it is not going to be a git revert - but more of a logical reversion. Do you want me to try that or have you something already in mind? (it would be queued after doing the other 14.3 back ports)
