------- Comment #9 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2007-10-04 08:58 ------- My apologies, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the jargon. I took the fix comment to mean that typeof in the context reported would produce a diagnostic saying that gcc could not compile the construct, and that this was acceptable because typeof would be acceptable in a typedef and the typedef'd name could be used instead of a literal "typeof". Under that understanding, I called it a kludge.
There are any number of contexts in which a type is accepted but a declaration is not, and especially in macro expansions it may be quite inconvenient to force the writer to manually declare the type. It tends to expose the internals of an abstraction when one wants a clean abstract interface that looks and acts like an expression or primary, and could be implemented as such if typeof were accepted in all contexts. If that is not a correct interpretation of "sorry" and "decltype" then I regret pulling your chain, and would like to know what these do mean if you would take the time to explain. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11756