--- Comment #9 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-01-22 22:06 ---
Apparently fixed.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13717
--- Comment #8 from tsarkov at cs dot man dot ac dot uk 2008-01-16 17:39
---
This is fixed in current mainline GCC (as per
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/porting_to.html).
--
tsarkov at cs dot man dot ac dot uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 15:13 ---
Based on 8.3.5/8 and the example from 8.3.6/9 which reads
int f(int a, int b = a);
I think this bug is invalid and function declarations with duplicate parameter
names are not invalid.
--
--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-29 16:26 ---
it might not be invalid, but its certainly worth a diagnostic IMHO
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13717
--- Comment #7 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-05-29 22:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Based on 8.3.5/8 and the example from 8.3.6/9 which reads
int f(int a, int b = a);
I think this bug is invalid and function declarations with duplicate parameter
names are not invalid.
--- Comment #4 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2006-03-15 10:42 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The one liner
void f( int fred, char * fred);
is IMHO illegal code because fred is the name of two parameters.
I just checked gcc 4.2 and it is broken there as well.
Even adding flags
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-04 12:45 ---
As mentioned in PR 17786 by Nathan:
correct. there is a related bug in that we fail to compile things like
void foo (int x, int ary[sizeof(x)]);
--
What|Removed |Added
