[apparmor] [patch] more gcc 5 errors

[Steve Beattie]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:10:34PM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
> well we actually have a lot of the pattern where ostream & is returned
> but those (with the patches applied) don't end up using their return
> value.
>   ie. we invoke dump(os) but don't do  os << dump(os)

> We do have instances where the returned ostream reference is used they
> are all operator<< but that shouldn't matter as it is just a fn, unless
> gcc 5 is special casing the << operator fn
> 
> rule.cc:std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &os, rule_t &rule)
> rule.h:std::ostream &operator<<(std::ostream &os, rule_t &rule);
> 
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, uchar c)
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const NodeSet &state)
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, Node &node)
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.h:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, uchar c);
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.h:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const NodeSet &state);
> libapparmor_re/expr-tree.h:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, Node &node);
> 
> libapparmor_re/hfa.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const CacheStats &cache)
> libapparmor_re/hfa.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const ProtoState &proto)
> libapparmor_re/hfa.cc:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const State &state)
> libapparmor_re/hfa.h:ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const State &state);

I'm probably about to expose to the world once again my complete lack of
understanding of C++ types and operators, but I *think* the distinction
is that when we have something like:

  os << dump(os);

the resulting function call looks like:

  operator<<(os, dump(os));

which would have types

  ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, ostream &os)

as opposed to e.g. calling:

  os << state;

which would be

  operator<<(os, state);

and with types

  ostream &operator<<(ostream &os, const State &state)

I'm *guessing* gcc-4.9 maybe had some glue that would paper over
that, but searching online hasn't turned up anything that I can see
that references any changes in behavior here. (Nothing obvious at
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html jumps out at me.)

-- 
Steve Beattie
<sbeattie at ubuntu.com>
http://NxNW.org/~steve/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20150217/fd051584/attachment-0001.pgp>