http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6359
--- Comment #1 from Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> 2010-02-21 04:24:52 CST --- I committed a temporary workaround from dgregor as r96733. Leaving bug open until we resolve exactly how function name and class name conflicts here should be handled. I'm a bit concerned by whether this one is well-formed. After reading [dcl.typedef] p2 and p4, it seems like even this code is bad: struct S { }; typedef struct S S; // OK typedef struct S S; // error due to typedef-name in elaborated type specifier? Does p4 completely strip the usefulness of p2? I hope I'm missing something. =D -- Configure bugmail: http://www.llvm.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
